Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:04 UTC
Google Okay once again I'm breaking my own one-week time-off from OSNews due to, you know, taking a break and being too busy with other things, but this one is big - very big. Also, only the second time in OSNews history we've used the 'breaking'-tag. Google has just announced it is going to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion (more here). While providing Google with a dedicated mobile phone business, it also gives Google ownership of one of the most valuable mobile technology patent portfolios in existence. Update: Responses from the Android ecosystem are positive. HTC: "We welcome the news of today's acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem." Sony Ericsson & LG: "We welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners."
Order by: Score:
Oh yeah!
by Brunis on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:13 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

Nice, hope they don't do an Apple and screw all the hardware vendors!

Guess the next Nexus will be a 'Motorola' product.. or pure Google phone!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh yeah!
by zima on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:13 UTC in reply to "Oh yeah!"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Assuming the hints about the upcoming Nexus being from LG or HTC (or was it Samsung? Anyway, I haven't stumbled at anything seriously speculating "Motorola Nexus", I think) were true - I guess the next Nexus will still be from LG or HTC (or Samsung...)

It's hard to find a gesture which would better show the goodwill of Google towards other hardware vendors, that Google will not "do an Apple and screw all the hardware vendors" in the future. OTOH, sabotaging any possible 3rd party Nexus... (obviously being prepared for some time as we speak, if any)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oh yeah!
by TemporalBeing on Mon 15th Aug 2011 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh yeah!"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Assuming the hints about the upcoming Nexus being from LG or HTC (or was it Samsung? Anyway, I haven't stumbled at anything seriously speculating "Motorola Nexus", I think) were true - I guess the next Nexus will still be from LG or HTC (or Samsung...)

It's hard to find a gesture which would better show the goodwill of Google towards other hardware vendors, that Google will not "do an Apple and screw all the hardware vendors" in the future. OTOH, sabotaging any possible 3rd party Nexus... (obviously being prepared for some time as we speak, if any)


Nexus One was through HTC.
Nexus S was through Samsung, and is currently available at least in the US (via BestBuy).
Haven't heard of another one yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Oh yeah!
by robojerk on Mon 15th Aug 2011 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh yeah!"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Nexus Prime (name may change) is the rumored, unannounced, upcoming Nexus Phone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Oh yeah!
by Neolander on Mon 15th Aug 2011 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh yeah!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think BGR are a pretty good source, and they report this : http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/27/googles-first-ice-cream-sandwich-phon...

Reply Score: 1

Intersting move
by ephracis on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:15 UTC
ephracis
Member since:
2007-09-23

It's an interesting move, I'll give them that. I am very eager to see how this will pan out for Google. They just got right into the fight with Apple and Microsoft (instead of standing in the shadows as they have done so far).

"It's on!"

Reply Score: 4

RE: Intersting move
by zima on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:02 UTC in reply to "Intersting move"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They just got right into the fight with Apple and Microsoft (instead of standing in the shadows as they have done so far)

And perhaps the recent words from Motorola CEO (I bet he realised full well, a few days ago, of the imminent acquisition by Google...) about possibly exercising its IP portfolio were ultimately more a hint at (also) those two.

In other news, a visible handset maker should now use the vanilla Android UI. Too bad it's a maker which retreated from most markets and with dwindling overall market share - but who knows, maybe this deal is what will breathe a new life into them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Intersting move
by ephracis on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Intersting move"
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

Truly. It is my view that Motorola has been fading lately and I was rather surprised by this move.

But this market moves very fast and the underdog today may be the leader tomorrow, which makes any predictions very fuzzy at best. Instead I try to figure out the motives that Google has with this and one big word keep popping up: patents!

Of course it would be nice for Google to control some sort of "reference" hardware/phone and maybe owning Motorola will make their "Google phones" even better. But I think that Motorola's patents are the actual treasure here.

2012 will be a very interesting year. Time to bring out the popcorn! ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Intersting move
by bertzzie on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Intersting move"
bertzzie Member since:
2011-01-26

2012 will be a very interesting year. Time to bring out the popcorn! ;)


Very interesting indeed. Motorola is almost like Nokia, old player with tons of patents. I hope this becomes Google-Motorola vs Microsoft-Nokia, and it blows off everyone, so finally put an end to this patent wars.

But of course, I may be just dreaming right now. This is too good to be true.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Intersting move
by zima on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Intersting move"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Though one thing seems to be slightly unfortunate. Google-Nokia and Microsoft-Motorola would feel like more natural relationships, I think; or at least more harmonious in my eyes. ;)

Oh well, can't have everything.

Edited 2011-08-15 13:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Intersting move
by El_Exigente on Sat 20th Aug 2011 07:30 UTC in reply to "Intersting move"
El_Exigente Member since:
2007-01-08

You show no understanding of the situation. Spending $12.5bn was not the only way for Google to "get right into the fight with Apple and Microsoft". For example, they could ask the courts for permission to intervene on behalf of their partners, or they could indemnify their partners, or they could pay for their partners legal expenses. All of which, taken together, would have cost far less than the $12.5 that they just spend to acquire a portfolio of patents form Motorola that has not stopped either Apple or Microsoft from suing Motorola.

So, either Google is very stupid, or the patents are not really the important part of this deal. And if they are not the important part of this deal, then they actually do want to be a handset manufacturer who makes their own software... like Apple!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by TusharG
by TusharG on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:20 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

Finally this makes things very interesting! Motorola has tones of patents in mobile industry. Also in recent times motorola also threatened to recover some money using mobile patents.
On the other hand my mind is happy for google. They were left alone to fight MS-Oracle-Apple group. Now they have something to fight back.
Yes I don't care about who is bad company... I just want patents to be distributed across many companies so that only one company does not become dominant.

Reply Score: 6

Mistake by Google
by libray on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:20 UTC
libray
Member since:
2005-08-27

As Microsoft can attest, much more can be done by being a software only company. I can't believe this was only about patents, but if it is, it's a mistake to get in the hardware business for a dotcom like Google. Google is not buying Motorola (they guys with the satellites), but Motorola Mobility Holdings (the cellphone side).


Unless! Google pulls Android from other platforms and reserves it for its own mobile division. That would be exciting because Google could become like Apple and control the ecosystem of hardware sales based on demand of the OS.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Mistake by Google
by terrakotta on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:38 UTC in reply to "Mistake by Google"
terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

I think the succes of the iphone attests that more can be done by controlling the complete stack. Microsoft has yet to show that it can be profitable in markets where there are more than 3 players to begin with. They even gain more money from android powered markets than from their WP7 offerings.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Mistake by Google
by libray on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Mistake by Google"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

Would you agree that the complete stack has to mean either higher license costs for Samsung and HTC or reserve Android for Google only?

I'm thinking about the Nokia move now and if they jumped over to WM because they had this concern over Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mistake by Google
by jtinz on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mistake by Google"
jtinz Member since:
2006-02-06

Would you agree that the complete stack has to mean either higher license costs for Samsung and HTC or reserve Android for Google only?


Or they license the patents to Apple and Nokia and grant them royalty-free for Android phones.

More realistically, all major mobile phone manufacturers already have cross-licensing agreements with Motorola and nothing much will change until these expire.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mistake by Whoogle?
by glarepate on Mon 15th Aug 2011 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mistake by Google"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Or they license the patents to Apple and Nokia and grant them royalty-free for Android phones.


Touche! Surrealism responds by stabbing irrealism.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mistake by Google
by terrakotta on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mistake by Google"
terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

I'm rather thinking about better motorola products because the software is better/sooner tested on these devices. As much as I don't like apple nor the concept of the iphone, its software is really well adapted to the hardware.

I don't recall samsung and htc paying royalties to Google, to microsoft otoh.

Nokia ditched everything they got and know (and the N9 shows that they do know how to make a decent UI) because they had their top exec flown over straight from his microsoft chair. Up until now the guys has done nothing but following a predictable path, trojan horse style. Effectively falsifying the myth of 'there's no such thing as bad publicity', and killing a product before its launch. No need to go look for other reasons like this patent nonsens.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mistake by Google
by Morgan on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:45 UTC in reply to "Mistake by Google"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Since when is Microsoft a software only company? My Xbox 360 begs to differ. And it's probably the second most useful thing to come from the company, right behind Windows 7 (speaking of my own experience of course). I rarely play games on the Xbox, it's more of a digital hub for me. I have access to Netflix streaming and Hulu Plus, as well as all the media files on my desktop when I choose to have it booted in Windows.

As for Windows 7, it has made me like the Windows OS again, after years of loathing Vista and tolerating XP.

All that said, I can't wait to see Google/Moto turn the tables on Microsoft and Apple in the whole patent fiasco. Sure, it's fighting dirty but it's nothing the other two haven't already done. Now maybe HTC and Samsung will be left alone to make great phones without having to fight in court for the right to stay in business.

Edit: And I realize as soon as I hit "Submit" that you were likely speaking within the realm of phone hardware. My apologies.

Edited 2011-08-15 12:51 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Mistake by Google
by d_Yn on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Mistake by Google"
d_Yn Member since:
2005-07-06

have you ever tried to `lspci -v` on your xbox? it was manufactured by NVidia down to its last screw.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mistake by Google
by Morgan on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mistake by Google"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

No I haven't. As shoehorning what little *nix code exists for the Xbox 360 onto the box requires hardware mods I am loathe to do, no thank you. It works fine for what I want it to do. Also, Nvidia only provided the video processing and glue logic for the original Xbox; Intel provided the system architecture and CPU. The Xbox 360 uses ATI graphics, Samsung memory and logic, and IBM processors. Know what you are talking about (and read my post more carefully, especially the "360" part) before making a fool of yourself trying to look smart.

More to the point, Does Dell manufacture "every last screw" of their desktops and laptops? Of course not! Does HP fab their own motherboards? Nope, they all outsource the hardware bits. BUT, each company offers full support for their branded hardware, down to "the last screw" in most cases. This holds true for Microsoft with the Xbox 360, and Sony with its Playstations (including the new PSP Phone they have out there, with their hardware and a heavily modified Android OS).

Edited 2011-08-15 14:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mistake by Google
by zima on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mistake by Google"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

A little nitpick: SiS provided at least most of the glue via their "southbridge" and memory controller is presumably by ATI.

(yup, SiS, so they are still relatively successful despite appearing to virtually disappear some time ago; and too bad, their stuff from K7-era onward was very decent; even some Intel-branded motherboards were based on SiS chipsets!)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Mistake by Google
by Morgan on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mistake by Google"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Interesting. I was sure Samsung was the memory controller manufacturer. I was going from memory though (no pun intended). Thanks for the correction! ;)

Edit: We're both sort of wrong:

The console features 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700 MHz with an effective transmission rate of 1.4 GHz on a 128-bit bus. The memory is shared by the CPU and the GPU via the unified memory architecture. This memory is produced by either Samsung or Qimonda.


Via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware .

Edited 2011-08-15 15:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Mistake by Google
by zima on Mon 15th Aug 2011 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Mistake by Google"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Wait, how was I sort of wrong? ;) ;) (I hardly addressed the memory itself / it's one of those generic things anyway)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Mistake by Google
by Morgan on Mon 15th Aug 2011 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Mistake by Google"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well you had said ATI was possibly the memory controller maker. It doesn't matter anyway, we've gone way off track! ;)

And I forgot to mention earlier, I greatly enjoyed SiS chipset-based hardware back in the day too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mistake by Google
by Neolander on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mistake by Google"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I don't think that was his point. It's becoming rare to see a "hardware" company doing the manufacturing itself nowadays. He was probably rather pointing out that Microsoft design the Xbox's hardware, just like Apple design the iDevices' hardware (before handing the manufacturing to Foxconn).

Edited 2011-08-15 15:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mistake by Google
by steogede2 on Wed 17th Aug 2011 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mistake by Google"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

I don't think that was his point. It's becoming rare to see a "hardware" company doing the manufacturing itself nowadays. He was probably rather pointing out that Microsoft design the Xbox's hardware, just like Apple design the iDevices' hardware (before handing the manufacturing to Foxconn).


Don't Foxconn manufacture everything?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Mistake by Google
by Neolander on Wed 17th Aug 2011 06:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mistake by Google"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You mean the Xbox too ? I don't know, it's possible. In doubt, I preferred to leave this unspecified ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mistake by Google
by Neolander on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:01 UTC in reply to "Mistake by Google"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I don't think that controlling the whole stack would be a bright idea for Google. If they fight Apple using Apple's own weapons (exclusively targeting the high-end to reduce fragmentation, brand image cultivated through an extreme marketing budget and the cult of Jobs' personality, pretty cases to compensate the ugly specs, simplicity at the expense of efficiency...), they are probably up for a good beating. Apple have been there for a low time, they know the rules of the game well, whereas Google don't.

Edited 2011-08-15 13:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mistake by Google
by Tony Swash on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Mistake by Google"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Apple's own weapons (exclusively targeting the high-end to reduce fragmentation, brand image cultivated through an extreme marketing budget and the cult of Jobs' personality, pretty cases to compensate the ugly specs, simplicity at the expense of efficiency...).


If you genuinely think that that is an accurate summary of the reasons for the success of Apple's products I pity you. Sorry to seem harsh but it's true.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mistake by Google
by Neolander on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mistake by Google"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Please explain it better yourself, then. What are, in your opinion, Apple's strong points, in the context of modern iOS (4.3 iirc) vs modern Android (2.3 iirc) ? We'll do the comparison in the context of smartphones, since it's Motorola mobility's main business (or have they released any tablet besides the Xoom ?), and also consider devices in the state where they are sold (no jailbreak, no rooting).

Edited 2011-08-15 13:15 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Mistake by Google
by WorknMan on Mon 15th Aug 2011 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mistake by Google"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Please explain it better yourself, then. What are, in your opinion, Apple's strong points, in the context of modern iOS (4.3 iirc) vs modern Android (2.3 iirc) ?


The main advantage for iPhone (from my own point of view) is that it has no vendor bloatware/carrier crapware to contend with, and I can actually get updates from the manufacturer the day they're released, instead of having to wait for 6 months and/or hope that the hardware vendor releases the update at all on my phone. Plus, the app store is better curated, so there's much less of a chance of getting hit with malware, and there's more apps to choose from as well.

And to be honest, things don't really change that much when you add rooting/jailbreaking to the equation, except with Android, I can then rely on hackers working in their spare time for updates, who are very hit or miss when it comes to releasing custom roms that are actually stable.

Note: I have an Android phone and like it, but IMHO, if Google buying Motorola means I can get a vanilla Android phone in the US on Verizon, I'm all for it. Otherwise, my next phone just may be an iPhone; they say the vendor bloatware (Sense inparticular) has gotten better since I bought my phone in April last year, but I don't plan on getting burned twice.

Edited 2011-08-15 22:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Mistake by Google
by Neolander on Tue 16th Aug 2011 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mistake by Google"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The main advantage for iPhone (from my own point of view) is that it has no vendor bloatware/carrier crapware to contend with

Vendor bloatware is a good point, but I don't think Google buying Motorola will do anything for carrier crapware. I may just be lucky, but I think carrier "customization" these days is not what it was in the WM6 days (huge unoptimized graphical layers on top of the manufacturer shell) and essentially revolves around removing features which annoy them like tethering (a rule which even Apple abides by, AFAIK).

and I can actually get updates from the manufacturer the day they're released, instead of having to wait for 6 months and/or hope that the hardware vendor releases the update at all on my phone.

As for binary (yes/no) update availability, Google have made steps in that direction at this year's IO, and some manufacturers are already pretty cool with OS updates. Now, about delays, this is really just a matter of language constructs. If Google changed their vocabulary and "announced" new releases of Android instead of "releasing" them, we'd get the same situation as iOS : announced in June, released in late September (probably).

Plus, the app store is better curated, so there's much less of a chance of getting hit with malware,

Good point, but has nothing to do with hardware/software integration. Google just have to do their work in their area.

and there's more apps to choose from as well.

I don't think "more" is the right word there. Once you get into hundreds of thousands, no human may ever fully parse the contents of the store anyway, so what's a few dozen thousands fart/gun apps more or less ?

Now, I think that you wanted to say something else, so I give you the benefit of doubt on that one.

And to be honest, things don't really change that much when you add rooting/jailbreaking to the equation, except with Android, I can then rely on hackers working in their spare time for updates, who are very hit or miss when it comes to releasing custom roms that are actually stable.

Sure, but it dramatically changes the relationship between users and OS manufacturers/OEMs/carriers. Without jailbreaking, they can impose whatever they want on you, with jailbreaking you can impose whatever you want on them.

As an example, "Carrier X has bloated up my phone !" and "The App Store won't let anyone compete with Apple !" becomes invalid with jailbreak. All phones become pretty much one and the same.

Note: I have an Android phone and like it, but IMHO, if Google buying Motorola means I can get a vanilla Android phone in the US on Verizon, I'm all for it. Otherwise, my next phone just may be an iPhone; they say the vendor bloatware (Sense inparticular) has gotten better since I bought my phone in April last year, but I don't plan on getting burned twice.

Note : To put it simply, if a phone has one of nowadays' touchscreens as its primary input interface, I won't buy it unless some external factor forces me to. Tried it, and in my opinion most useless computer interface ever created on this form factor. Guess this is another, weird form of neutrality in this debate ;)

That being said, if you don't like OEMs messing up with vanilla Android, you could also try one of them Nexus phones. Seems like you are part of the target audience, and if you have iPhone-like budget when you buy a phone...

Edited 2011-08-16 07:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Mistake by Google
by WorknMan on Tue 16th Aug 2011 07:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Mistake by Google"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Vendor bloatware is a good point, but I don't think Google buying Motorola will do anything for carrier crapware.


Well, I can deal with the carrier crapware as long as I can root, but you said list advantages without rooting ;) As long as it's vanilla underneath.

Now, about delays, this is really just a matter of language constructs. If Google changed their vocabulary and "announced" new releases of Android instead of "releasing" them, we'd get the same situation as iOS : announced in June, released in late September (probably).


LOL, what are you talking about? Gingerbread was released in Dec 2010, but Google announced it WAY before then. I couldn't find the exact announcement date, but I found a couple of articles from June 2010 that talked about it, so they announced it at LEAST a good six months before releasing it. I think they announced ice cream sandwich back in January.

And anyway, it looks like the Droid Incredible (the phone I have) will finally be getting Gingerbread, only 8 months after it was released. That is INEXCUSABLE!! And companies are still as of a month or two ago) releasing phones with Froyo (2.2) installed. I just want a phone where I can get new updates in a month or so, or in less time than that if it's minor update to fix a vulnerability. IMHO, I don't think that's too much to ask for.

I don't think "more" is the right word there. Once you get into hundreds of thousands, no human may ever fully parse the contents of the store anyway, so what's a few dozen thousands fart/gun apps more or less ?


I mean, more as in better overall quality, but I suppose that is subjective, depending on what you want to do.

As an example, "Carrier X has bloated up my phone !" and "The App Store won't let anyone compete with Apple !" becomes invalid with jailbreak. All phones become pretty much one and the same.


I'm not saying that jailbreaking/rooting isn't valuable, just that I'd rather not have to resort to rooting in order to rely on hackers to get timely updates. I mean, some people like installing the latest nightly builds of a rom, figuring out which features don't work, overclocking the CPU, trying to find a kernel to improve their crappy battery life, etc. I know that those guys are really into that kind of thing, and that's great. But hey... I'm not in high school anymore and don't have time for that shit. And even if I did, I still wouldn't want to.
With my Incredible, I did it because I had to in order to get Sense off my phone. And still, I never found a really stable vanilla rom. At the moment, my LED notification light doesn't work, and my GPS randomly stops working, and I have to reflash the rom to get it going again. Not really problems most people would experience with stock roms.

That being said, if you don't like OEMs messing up with vanilla Android, you could also try one of them Nexus phones. Seems like you are part of the target audience, and if you have iPhone-like budget when you buy a phone...


Would love to, if they would just release one on Verizon ;) In the US, if you want a carrier with decent coverage, your only two optiosn are AT&T and Verizon. And well, I've had enough experience with AT&T to know that I'd rather tongue the sweaty asshole of a Kenyan marathon runner than to deal with those f**ktards again.

Having said all that, things are not exactly rosey on iOS either... you just have to decide which set of annoyances on either platform bother you the most ;)

Edited 2011-08-16 07:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Mistake by Google
by Neolander on Tue 16th Aug 2011 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Mistake by Google"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

LOL, what are you talking about? Gingerbread was released in Dec 2010, but Google announced it WAY before then. I couldn't find the exact announcement date, but I found a couple of articles from June 2010 that talked about it, so they announced it at LEAST a good six months before releasing it. I think they announced ice cream sandwich back in January.

Then they could 1/announce it later and 2/synchronize release on all manufacturers. I really think that's a communication problem, due to Google doing stuff in their corner instead of communicating with their partners. When Microsoft label a new version of Windows as released, you find it in every computer store in the following month, generally less.

And anyway, it looks like the Droid Incredible (the phone I have) will finally be getting Gingerbread, only 8 months after it was released. That is INEXCUSABLE!! And companies are still as of a month or two ago) releasing phones with Froyo (2.2) installed. I just want a phone where I can get new updates in a month or so, or in less time than that if it's minor update to fix a vulnerability. IMHO, I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Now, as a first goal, they're announcing 18 months ( http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/android-momentum-mobile-and-... ), and claiming they can do more later (without going into more details about what's "more"). So guess that's not enough for you. Myself, as long as I have my minor security updates, I'm happy.

I'm sort against feature updates on old devices the way we do them currently, because manufacturers test them insufficiently on old hardware (remember iOS 4 on iPhone 3G ?), and as such these updates break stuff and can't be installed with confidence. If manufacturers are not going to test their updates, they can say it and not release the update at all, that's fine by me. I paid for a set of features when I bought my device, no need for more. But security and stability are features, so they need to take care of them through minor updates.

I mean, more as in better overall quality, but I suppose that is subjective, depending on what you want to do.

Guess so too. So far, only few mobile apps have proved themselves worthy of staying very long on my devices. These mostly corrected what the manufacturer had done wrong in the bundled feature set (home screen widgets, Opera Mobile/Mini), which is forbidden by Apple. Others were essentially funny toys to play with for a minute, then became quickly boring.

Would love to, if they would just release one on Verizon ;) In the US, if you want a carrier with decent coverage, your only two optiosn are AT&T and Verizon. And well, I've had enough experience with AT&T to know that I'd rather tongue the sweaty asshole of a Kenyan marathon runner than to deal with those f**ktards again.

Can't you buy the phone unlocked ? Following the links from www.google.com/nexus, I've quickly found this one : http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Nexus-Unlocked-Phone--U-S-Warranty/dp...

I buy all of my phones unlocked for two reasons. First, it makes me see the real price of things, which is always enlightening and forces me to ask myself the question "what do I need ?" instead of going for what's essentially a credit contract. Second, I can use whatever mobile plan suits my needs best, instead of going for the crazily-priced ones. Third, carriers don't tamper with my phones before I use them, which means no stupid carrier-specific bundled crap and useful stuff like tethering is still there.

Having said all that, things are not exactly rosey on iOS either... you just have to decide which set of annoyances on either platform bother you the most ;)

Or, as I say it, which is the least painful ;)

Edited 2011-08-16 09:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mistake by Google
by Soulbender on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:55 UTC in reply to "Mistake by Google"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

As Microsoft can attest, much more can be done by being a software only company.


Like what? Fail completely as a mobile OS provider?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Mistake by Google - "control the ecosystem"
by jabbotts on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:59 UTC in reply to "Mistake by Google"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

They will already be able to do this. They simply need to tap natural market forces to do it.

Consider this "what-if". Google produces hardware units that provide a vanilla Android experience; "this is Android without BS vendor curruptions to 'differentiate'"

Now, other hardware vendors must compete against Google's own hardware/software. Overload your phones with vendor modified UI or "value add" baggage software; Stock Google phones provide a better experience so you loose and the consumer gains. Withhold updates or ignore Android supported features you want to sell in a higher price point bit of hardware; Stock Google phones update against the unmodified official distro and support the full feature set available in the software so you loose and the consumer gains.

This could re-introduce some natural market forces back into mobile and give Android a potent way to address "fragment for self interest" aproach vendors have taken to Android so far.

Reply Score: 3

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Extend that with regular software-updates (no customization needed, testing done by google and deploying to the Motos on the very first day of release), a secure long term strategy (Moto will do Android now and forever) and interesting business values (even closer combining with google services, protocols and technologies). All that will be available for other vendors too but now one of the major players will stick close to what's in the best interest for Android, google, the ecosystem, the long term strategy and not only focus in a unpredictable way on it's own short term stock-curve. That's an advantage for Moto, google, Android and it's partners.

Edited 2011-08-16 02:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mistake by Google? Hmmmm ...
by glarepate on Mon 15th Aug 2011 20:16 UTC in reply to "Mistake by Google"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Unless! Google pulls Android from other platforms and reserves it for its own mobile division. That would be exciting because Google could become like Apple and control the ecosystem of hardware sales based on demand of the OS.


1.) Today at the announcement conference call they promised [yet again] to keep releasing Android as open source.

2.) Even if they don't do that and simply stop releasing, and only produce new code under a different license, the existing code is already out there. It will either be abandoned, hurting the Android platform's spread, or give rise to massive fragmentation as everyone forks off on their own individual tangent starting from the existing code base, hurting Android.

So much for excitement. (o;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mistake by Google? Hmmmm ...
by cdude on Tue 16th Aug 2011 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Mistake by Google? Hmmmm ..."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Keeping Android open and the partners strong is inline with spreading google services over the phone-landscape. Aborting that means hurting the cash-cow. google will not be that stupid.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mistake by Google
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 15th Aug 2011 22:59 UTC in reply to "Mistake by Google"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

They bought them for the patents and to make themselves a party to an active litigation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mistake by Google
by MollyC on Tue 16th Aug 2011 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Mistake by Google"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

13 billion seems like quite a lot just for that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mistake by Google
by OSbunny on Mon 15th Aug 2011 23:00 UTC in reply to "Mistake by Google"
OSbunny Member since:
2009-05-23

Mistake is exactly what I first thought. This is how you loose your focus. There is so much more money to be made online why would you get into the commodity hardware business?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mistake by Google
by cdude on Tue 16th Aug 2011 02:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Mistake by Google"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

That's simple. To keep your focus and keep on to make more money online what is where Moto is of help.

Edited 2011-08-16 02:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

And Now...
by qroon on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:26 UTC
qroon
Member since:
2005-10-21

Let the Patent Armageddon begin ;)

Reply Score: 10

We'll see where this goes
by FunkyELF on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:33 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

I liked the current situation where Google would go from vendor to vendor working on a next gen device.

It wasn't tied to the hardware like Apple is, but it was still very deeply involved.

I'd hate to see that change. I hope the other vendors don't become red-headed step children, always being a version behind.

Reply Score: 2

moar patents!
by TheWzzrd on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:43 UTC
TheWzzrd
Member since:
2008-05-08

This effectively means that while Microsoft and Apple thought they had bought a powerful anti-competitive patent club to hit Google with, they have now spent $4.5 billion on a patent portfolio about 1/4th the size of Motorola's.

Sweet Jesus! That is one of the sweetest and bestest realizations I had in a long time. Splendid!

Reply Score: 7

RE: moar patents!
by fran on Tue 16th Aug 2011 10:48 UTC in reply to "moar patents!"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Yeh..Motorolla has about 17000 patents with another 7500 applications in process.

Reply Score: 3

Funny
by Ikshaar on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:49 UTC
Ikshaar
Member since:
2005-07-14

It's funny that all these purchases essentially mean that now, the status quo of patent wars can be maintained.... glad for Google anyway.

Reply Score: 4

The Fallout
by CapEnt on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:55 UTC
CapEnt
Member since:
2005-12-18

Its hard to think that Google did that alone... i see a Samsung or a alliance between all Android vendors behind this move, like a massive shadow. But i can't prove.

The fact that the Android hardware manufacturers are happy with this means that there is something else in that move. None of them would be happy with the creation of a massive competitor holding the control of their software platform unless Google promised something else beforehand.

Based on the amount of Google partners that Apple and Microsoft pissed of, some kind of fallout was predicable.

Reply Score: 5

RE: The Fallout
by vodoomoth on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:07 UTC in reply to "The Fallout"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Based on the amount of Google partners that Apple and Microsoft pissed of, some kind of fallout was predicable.

Yes, but do you think Apple and MS care?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The Fallout
by CapEnt on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE: The Fallout"
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

Of course! Motorola patents are enforceable in practice, very unlike the bulk of software patents of Apple and MS, or "community design" scratches.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: The Fallout
by terrakotta on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE: The Fallout"
terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

If it means no more 15$ per android device sold, I think MS cares.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: The Fallout
by Soulbender on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE: The Fallout"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

They should, especially MS who isn't exactly doing stellar in the mobile space.
Only a fool would not care about losing partners and customers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A shadowy alliance, huh?
by glarepate on Mon 15th Aug 2011 20:44 UTC in reply to "The Fallout"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Maybe this alliance?

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html (And then click on Handset Manufacturers)

Although this is only the handset manufacturers. There are also alliance members in the Mobile Operators, Semiconductor Company, Software Company and Commercialization Company groups as well. But Samsung is in the handset group ...

Reply Score: 2

Good investment
by siki_miki on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:29 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

Google's weak patent portfolio? Nothing that couldn't be fixed for $12bn.
With that and recently acquired IBM patents, I am expecting them to countersue Oracle, and maybe even extort some deal with Apple to stop them suing other manufacturers.
Now I wouldn't be surprised if MS hurries up with Nokia acquisition deal...there is a lot of consolidation going on in the market as a reaction to mobile OS (and patent) wars.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Good investment
by cdude on Tue 16th Aug 2011 02:23 UTC in reply to "Good investment"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Some weeks ago Nokia was worth around 30 billion $. If you add +50% that woud be 45 billion. To large?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good investment
by El_Exigente on Sat 20th Aug 2011 07:35 UTC in reply to "Good investment"
El_Exigente Member since:
2007-01-08

Uh, just in case you forgot, the Oracle-Google case is about copyright infringement, not patents.

Reply Score: 1

v OH REALLY THANK YOU
by _xmv on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:38 UTC
RE: OH REALLY THANK YOU
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:01 UTC in reply to "OH REALLY THANK YOU"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Second time in our 14-years history we've used an all-caps headline.

I think we're cool.

Reply Score: 13

RE[2]: OH REALLY THANK YOU
by flanque on Tue 16th Aug 2011 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE: OH REALLY THANK YOU"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

All your cool belongs to Thom.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: OH REALLY THANK YOU
by Budd on Wed 17th Aug 2011 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE: OH REALLY THANK YOU"
Budd Member since:
2005-07-08

To be fair, you were not here 14 years ago. Hell, you weren't here not even 10 years ago. So is not "our" (as in you & OSNews) history but OSNews history.

Reply Score: 2

RE: OH REALLY THANK YOU
by Kroc on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:36 UTC in reply to "OH REALLY THANK YOU"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Interesting fact: the largest movable-type available to newspaper printers was called "second coming".

Reply Score: 11

RE: OH REALLY THANK YOU
by Morgan on Mon 15th Aug 2011 17:59 UTC in reply to "OH REALLY THANK YOU"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Dude, they invaded a long time ago and nobody went all-caps then. Relax.


;)

Reply Score: 2

WOW!
by fran on Mon 15th Aug 2011 13:50 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

just that

Reply Score: 2

Awesome
by Aragorn992 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:22 UTC
Aragorn992
Member since:
2007-05-27

Is Motorolas patent portfolio really big enough to discourage patent attacks on Google/Android (from Apple, MS, etc)? Id really like to hear the opinion of some people who know more about this than me?.. If so, great news!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Awesome
by Soulbender on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:53 UTC in reply to "Awesome"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Motorola has been making phone hardware and software since forever, at least in comparison to MS and Apple. It's pretty much a given that they'll have a considerably larger patent portfolio.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Awesome
by _txf_ on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Motorola has been making phone hardware and software since forever, at least in comparison to MS and Apple. It's pretty much a given that they'll have a considerably larger patent portfolio.


Yeah. And unlike those others they Have a ton of mobile hardware patents.

AFAIK the majority of patents that Apple and MS are using as a club are software patents.

Particularly Apple as a hardware company, really ought to have hardware patents. It is strange that they seldom use hardware as a club. This means that :

a) They have not designed anything novel on the hardware side
b) They are holding those back for some reason.

I think that a) is the more likely option.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Awesome
by Lennie on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Actually a researcher from Motorola invented the cellphone.

My guess is, it is mostly just a more portal version of the carphone.

Edited 2011-08-15 15:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Awesome
by Not2Sure on Mon 15th Aug 2011 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

Motorola has been making phone hardware and software since forever, at least in comparison to MS and Apple. It's pretty much a given that they'll have a considerably larger patent portfolio.


I'd suggest you maybe need to wait a little bit. A larger portfolio is not necessarily a stronger portfolio in the patent world.

If it was as strong a portfolio as everyone wants to assume, MS and APPL probably would not have been so quick to file the patent infringment claims they already have against MMI wrt Android. I'm guessing their strategy involved looking at MMI holdings indepth prior to proceeding to guage its impact on their business.

Who knows, but I'm guessing neither would start a war with a well-armed enemy. That hasn't exactly been their history.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Awesome
by cdude on Tue 16th Aug 2011 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awesome"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

I'm guessing their strategy involved looking at MMI holdings indepth prior to proceeding

I'm guessing they did not expect years long fights but that Moto would pay the taxes like others did to proceed making money rather then fighting an expensive and long fight for google.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Awesome
by El_Exigente on Sat 20th Aug 2011 07:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awesome"
El_Exigente Member since:
2007-01-08

Not2Sure: Yours is the first post on this thread to show any understanding or insight. Which is not as much of a compliment as it seems, because the rest of the comments on this thread are mindless. However, I do agree with your view.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Awesome
by El_Exigente on Sat 20th Aug 2011 07:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome"
El_Exigente Member since:
2007-01-08

"Motorola has been making phone hardware and software since forever..."

"Since forever" is a long time. Perhaps some of their best patents have expired...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Awesome
by bitwelder on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:13 UTC in reply to "Awesome"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Bryce Elder of FT/alphaville reports: "I'd be more interested in Motorola Mobility's patent portfolio. It has 24,500 patents, including 15,200 for handsets and another 6,200 for cornerstone technologies such as 3G, 802.11 (ie. wifi) and MPEG-4 (ie. video)."

That should give some leverage in the future patent wars.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Awesome
by pgeorgi on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

and MPEG-4 (ie. video).

I wonder if that helps fixing the WebM issue en passant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Awesome
by KLU9 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

Ah, finally some info on what patents Motorola *Mobility* hold, as opposed to just references to 'Motorola' in general. Thank you.

I would have imagined a lot of important patents stayed with Motorola *Solutions*, but if they did go to M.Mobility, then good for Google.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Awesome
by Not2Sure on Mon 15th Aug 2011 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Awesome"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

Bryce Elder of FT/alphaville reports: "I'd be more interested in Motorola Mobility's patent portfolio. It has 24,500 patents, including 15,200 for handsets and another 6,200 for cornerstone technologies such as 3G, 802.11 (ie. wifi) and MPEG-4 (ie. video)."

That should give some leverage in the future patent wars.


Seeing as how MS and APPL have already filed infringment claims against MMI, I seriously doubt they considered it a threat deterrent. I fail to see how Google owning the same weaker portfolio makes it any stronger overnight.

This whole announcement is alot of fanboi PR spin and hype.

1) Motorola is a hardware OEM whose market share has been on a steady dramatic decline and industry analysts were writing its epitaph just a few years ago. 1 or 2 profitable quarters does not erase a track record of diminished quality and problems that spans a decade.

2) Google, a software company with an extremely poor track record of managing consumer hardware experience (see Nexus One, lolz) is purchasing one to "bolt on" to its existing corporate structure. Yeah, that has a history of working well.

3) People who think the other Android licensees are happy about this really need to think 30 seconds. The "statements" from so-called competitors in support of this acquisition are so closely-worded it appears they all "voluntarily" put out a joint press release. That is fairly creepy and should raise eyebrows at the DOJ.

4) If you think Google is not going to favor its own hardware over that of licensees you're being naive. Android is now on the same path as Symbian.

On the plus side, Google is paying $12.5 billion for MMI, Microsoft paid $8.5 billion for Skype. Go figure.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Awesome rehash of a Phandroid comment ...
by glarepate on Mon 15th Aug 2011 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awesome"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

3) People who think the other Android licensees are happy about this really need to think 30 seconds. The "statements" from so-called competitors in support of this acquisition are so closely-worded it appears they all "voluntarily" put out a joint press release. That is fairly creepy and should raise eyebrows at the DOJ.


I know. What I really expected them all to say was:

"We welcome our new googly overlords and look forward to surrendering beeeeelyuns in IP licensing fees in order to be allowed to continue to do business at all."

You don't think a better way to get the attention of of the regulations bodies would be to say that they feel threatened by this, or that it seems like too much concentration of power? You think that we will see headlines like:

DOJ investigates pod-person CEO statements

I remain unconvinced.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Awesome
by cdude on Tue 16th Aug 2011 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Awesome"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

I fail to see how Google owning the same weaker portfolio makes it any stronger overnight.


Such a fight is expensive, takes long and usually ends with an arrangement. Sometimes it's easier and more cheap to just pay (and maybe even get something in return) to reach that arrangement faster.

Now the interests are different. Moto's top-priority is protecting the Android-ecosystem now.

3) People who think the other Android licensees are happy about this really need to think 30 seconds.


You can be sure they get something in return. The statements are clear that this protects the ecosystem and the partners. Both of them where in strong need for that. And maybe there are even more details we don't know about yet.

4) If you think Google is not going to favor its own hardware over that of licensees you're being naive.


If you think google would kill it's successful Android online-/service-strategy then you are naive. They have better ways to maximize profit while still keeping partners happy (like removing the Microsoft/Apple taxes and control what they just did & kick competition out what is what happens with Microsoft/Nokia Phone 7).

Edited 2011-08-16 03:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Breaking
by benb320 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 14:31 UTC
benb320
Member since:
2010-02-23

when was the breaking tag first used?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Breaking
by qroon on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:09 UTC in reply to "Breaking"
qroon Member since:
2005-10-21
My 2cents adjusted for inflation
by suryad on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:07 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

I have a feeling that this will result in some interesting implementations of that docking feature that the motorola phones pack. They now will have access to Chrome OS and what not so I am sure Google will be looking at marrying that OS with that laptop dock with the Motorola phone. Quad core, 4.5 inch qhd or higher res screen, powerful gpu, 1 gb + RAM, 16 gb of storage, 5 mp or higher camera, a very nicely built netbook type docking station and a sweet OS and I think they have a customer in me ;)

Reply Score: 3

Indiscretion
by Beta on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:08 UTC
Beta
Member since:
2005-07-06

It’s a big step.

Reply Score: 2

Ahhh...
by cypress on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:15 UTC
cypress
Member since:
2005-07-11

This has brightened my day.
Your move Microsoft...

Reply Score: 2

The #FUD Started
by martini on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:20 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

The #FUD leaded by the Apple fanbois has started.

Everything leaded by the "Apple Magna Cum Laude" John Grubber. Just check his page and see all fanbois tweeting his same idea.

Reply Score: 2

Unlocked bootloader
by sb56637 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:47 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

Please say that this means Google will make them release an unlocked bootloader for my Droid 2 Global phone so I can install a 3rd party ROM with an updated kernel? The Droid 2 / Droid 3 are probably the best QWERTY Android phones from a hardware perspective, but hindered by software from Motorola and Verizon.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:51 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12
RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Linking to a convicted fraud... I guess the Apple fanatics are getting really desparate.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by malxau on Mon 15th Aug 2011 16:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04



Thanks for posting this, my initial reaction was the same.

Google is now competing with its partners. How long can that work? Does google go easy on its partners to keep a broad ecosystem? Or does it attempt to maximize the revenue/profit from its own handset group and screw its partners?

Potentially this is great for Microsoft (or any other smartphone software maker - RIM?) MS might lose the ability to license patents to Android handset makers, but it might gain Windows Phone licensees, which is really what it wanted all along.

It'll be interesting to see what actually happens here when the dust settles, but if I were HTC or Samsung right now, I'd definitely be considering my options.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by KLU9 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

time to take Bada to the big leagues?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I don't think it will work, unless Google keeps the patents and sells off the rest of Motorola.

If they start making phones while controlling the software it would give them an advantage over Samsung, HTC and the rest. They'll have the A+ Androids, the others the 2nd class ones. Would these others accept that, drop Android or create their own spin-off?

Reply Score: 1

jackpot!
by AdamW on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:52 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

boy, am I glad I never got around to dumping those MMI shares...

Reply Score: 3

No,...
by Shannara on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:54 UTC
Shannara
Member since:
2005-07-06

Last I looked (this morning), Google ANNOUNCED, THEIR PLAN, to buy Motorola ... HUGE DIFFERENCE.

SEE? I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS TOO!

Reply Score: 1

RE: No,...
by gilboa on Mon 15th Aug 2011 15:59 UTC in reply to "No,..."
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Last I looked (this morning), Google ANNOUNCED, THEIR PLAN, to buy Motorola ... HUGE DIFFERENCE.

SEE? I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS TOO!


You are wrong:
(http://investor.google.com/releases/2011/0815.html, emphasis mine)
"Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) and Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: MMI) today announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which Google will acquire Motorola Mobility for $40.00 per share in cash, or a total of about $12.5 billion, a premium of 63% to the closing price of Motorola Mobility shares on Friday, August 12, 2011. The transaction was unanimously approved by the boards of directors of both companies.

Pending some governmental approval issue, this is a done deal, jack.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: No,...
by AdamW on Mon 15th Aug 2011 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE: No,..."
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

well, it also requires shareholder approval.

of course, since moto shares have been in the toilet for approximately ever and this deal is 40% above current value, shareholder approval is not likely to be hard to come by. =)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: No,...
by justanothersysadmin on Tue 16th Aug 2011 06:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No,..."
justanothersysadmin Member since:
2011-06-09

Minor nitpick on the 40% premium thing:
Offered price was $40/share, which is a ~63% premium over Friday's closing value, and about 76% over their 50-day moving average.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 15th Aug 2011 16:13 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Now, is Google going to be consistent with claiming that they aren't evil, and granting Motorola's mobile patents as DPL (Defensive Patent License) benefiting all open source communities in general?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Beta on Mon 15th Aug 2011 16:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Now, is Google going to be consistent with claiming that they aren't evil, and granting Motorola's mobile patents as DPL (Defensive Patent License) benefiting all open source communities in general?


Their WebM move shows they have done it before, and can do it again.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 15th Aug 2011 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

This might be slightly different. Google is yet to show how they feel about Meego for example. And granting Motorola's patents as DPL can benefit all mobile open source field, not just Android alone.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Aug 2011 23:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Now, is Google going to be consistent with claiming that they aren't evil, and granting Motorola's mobile patents as DPL (Defensive Patent License) benefiting all open source communities in general?


Google is already a member of two community patent pools.

WebM has a patent pool, of which Google is the main member:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20056579-264.html

Then there is the OIN patent pool, of which Google is already also a member:

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php

This means that after Google buys MMI, because of the way that these community patent pools operate, all of MMI's relevant patents will become licensed to all other members of those pools. Google won't be able to sue any of them.

It also means that if Microsoft and/or Apple were to join the OIN, Google won't be able to sue them either, and they would also not be able to sue Google.

Patent MAD war over. Everybody would win (except patent lawyers).

Edited 2011-08-15 23:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by TechGeek on Tue 16th Aug 2011 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

While I believe you are right on the surface, both Oracle and Google are OIN members. Yet Oracle is suing Google over an open source project. Not really sure how its suppose to work.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

While I believe you are right on the surface, both Oracle and Google are OIN members. Yet Oracle is suing Google over an open source project. Not really sure how its suppose to work.


I said all of MMI's relevant patents. I should perhaps have been clearer and said instead "all of MIM's patents relevant to the pool".

In the case of the OIN pool, the pool is for Linux-related patents.

In the case of the WebM pool, the pool is for video codec patents.

A significant number of the MMI patents will be rleated to one or the other of these pools. All such patents will automatically be licensed to all of the members of the relevant pool.

For example, according to Oracle, the Java-related patents at issue are not specific to Linux, and therefore are not relevant to the OIN community pool. Since Java is cross-platform, Oracle are probably right here.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by galvanash on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

In that case I agree with you, but... My only caveat is you contention that a "significant" number of MMI patents would be relevant to Linux and WebM. I suspect there might be a few, but I doubt it would even be in the double digits. Most of MMI's patents are going to be on hardware inventions and communications processes... Just saying.

Now if Google were to create a community pool based on the MMI patents (like it did with On2's), that would probably go a long way to appease the naysayers. It would also make the Samsungs and HTCs of the world a lot more comfortably with the arrangement (I know they are publicly supportive, but it must make them at least a little nervous). I personally expect them to do exactly this once the dust settles.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

In that case I agree with you, but... My only caveat is you contention that a "significant" number of MMI patents would be relevant to Linux and WebM. I suspect there might be a few, but I doubt it would even be in the double digits. Most of MMI's patents are going to be on hardware inventions and communications processes... Just saying. Now if Google were to create a community pool based on the MMI patents (like it did with On2's), that would probably go a long way to appease the naysayers. It would also make the Samsungs and HTCs of the world a lot more comfortably with the arrangement (I know they are publicly supportive, but it must make them at least a little nervous). I personally expect them to do exactly this once the dust settles.


Agreed. It makes perfect sense for Google to do this, and then for any manufacturer interested in making Android mobile devices to then join this new community patent pool.

Microsoft can then kiss goodbye to the extortion payments they are trying to extract from makers of Android devices, IMO.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 03:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

For example, according to Oracle, the Java-related patents at issue are not specific to Linux, and therefore are not relevant to the OIN community pool. Since Java is cross-platform, Oracle are probably right here.


Having said that, apparently if they do buy MMI one of the things Google will be buying is a JavaME license.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by El_Exigente on Sat 20th Aug 2011 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
El_Exigente Member since:
2007-01-08

It is a very safe assumption that the MMI Java license is strictly limited in scope, rights, transferability, etc. Because it is doubtful that Sun's lawyers were completely incompetent, and it would unfair to judge their lawyers' competence by assuming it is on a par with Jonathan Schwartz' competence (or lack thereof.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by galvanash on Tue 16th Aug 2011 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

This means that after Google buys MMI, because of the way that these community patent pools operate, all of MMI's relevant patents will become licensed to all other members of those pools. Google won't be able to sue any of them.


That is not my understanding. I wish you were right, but my understanding is:

1. The WebM pool is only relevant for patents that are applicable to WebM - MMI certainly may have some patents that fall into that category, but the vast majority are certainly not related to WebM at all.

2. The OIN does not prohibit members from suing each other - that is just not true at all. It prohibits members from filing suit over Linux. Now what exactly that means when boiled down to legalize I'm not entirely sure, but it certainly does not preclude members from suing each other if it is NOT related to Linux.

More importantly, it does not require members to donate any of their patents to the pool - they certainly can if they want to, but they are merely required to license the members of the pool to any patent that is applicable to Linux (which in reality simply means members cannot sue each other over Linux). As such the majority of MMIs patents (which are mostly patents on communication technology) are not relevant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by elsewhere on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

"This means that after Google buys MMI, because of the way that these community patent pools operate, all of MMI's relevant patents will become licensed to all other members of those pools. Google won't be able to sue any of them.


That is not my understanding. I wish you were right, but my understanding is:

1. The WebM pool is only relevant for patents that are applicable to WebM - MMI certainly may have some patents that fall into that category, but the vast majority are certainly not related to WebM at all.

2. The OIN does not prohibit members from suing each other - that is just not true at all. It prohibits members from filing suit over Linux. Now what exactly that means when boiled down to legalize I'm not entirely sure, but it certainly does not preclude members from suing each other if it is NOT related to Linux.

More importantly, it does not require members to donate any of their patents to the pool - they certainly can if they want to, but they are merely required to license the members of the pool to any patent that is applicable to Linux (which in reality simply means members cannot sue each other over Linux). As such the majority of MMIs patents (which are mostly patents on communication technology) are not relevant.
"

I believe the fact that Oracle (OIN member) is suing Google (OIN member) over patents related to the JVM (not linux) would seem to support your view, too.

Companies like IBM are OIN members too, and there's absolutely no way they would automatically open up their entire patent pool carte blanche to anyone joining OIN. It's simply a pool of voluntarily contributed licenses that members can use on the condition they don't launch patent suits related to linux and a list of specific linux-related apps.

IIRC, it originated at the height of the MS-linux FUD war. Novell acquired a set of e-comm related patents that everyone was worried could be used to launch a patent war against anyone with an online presence, Microsoft included. Novell founded the OIN, dumped the patents in, and basically said to MS that they were free to use them to cover their potentially-infringing related business, but in doing so would have to agree not to sue the other members over linux-related patents. MS didn't bite, and frankly, although well intentioned, the OIN hasn't really changed the playing field one way or the other.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

It would be really great then to create such defensive pool for mobile technologies too, so open source projects and products could be defended against the likes of Apple and MS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It would be really great then to create such defensive pool for mobile technologies too, so open source projects and products could be defended against the likes of Apple and MS.


Precisely. Google (with MMI patents), HTC, Samsung, Sony Ericsson and LG are the companies that immediately spring to mind as potential initial members of this new community patent pool.

Edited 2011-08-16 01:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Intel could join for the sake of Meego. Nokia is in the hot water however, being tied to Microsoft now, while still being involved in Meego too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Intel could join for the sake of Meego. Nokia is in the hot water however, being tied to Microsoft now, while still being involved in Meego too.


Intel is not already a member of OIN.

If Google did establish a community patent pool for the mobile patents it purchases from MMI, it would make sense then for Intel to join that pool and also the OIN pool.

This IMO has the potential to end this current patent war madness. The community pools, together, would be virtually unassailable, with all members essentially licensed to do almost anything, and none of them able to sue any of the other members.

If there are enough members, it could potentially render any patents outside the pools useless for the purpose of attacking members of the pools.

Edited 2011-08-16 02:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"This means that after Google buys MMI, because of the way that these community patent pools operate, all of MMI's relevant patents will become licensed to all other members of those pools. Google won't be able to sue any of them.
That is not my understanding. I wish you were right, but my understanding is: 1. The WebM pool is only relevant for patents that are applicable to WebM - MMI certainly may have some patents that fall into that category, but the vast majority are certainly not related to WebM at all. 2. The OIN does not prohibit members from suing each other - that is just not true at all. It prohibits members from filing suit over Linux. Now what exactly that means when boiled down to legalize I'm not entirely sure, but it certainly does not preclude members from suing each other if it is NOT related to Linux. "

So far, correct. I did say "relevant" patents, which means patent relevant to the pool (WebM pool, or OIN which is a Linux pool). I should have emphasised this a bit more, apparently.

More importantly, it does not require members to donate any of their patents to the pool - they certainly can if they want to, but they are merely required to license the members of the pool to any patent that is applicable to Linux (which in reality simply means members cannot sue each other over Linux).


Yes. I did not imply that members of the OIN pool could sue non-members, I said only that members of the pool cannot sue each other. Google are now free to countersue Apple and Microsoft over MMI patents related to a mobile phone OS, but they cannot sue anyone who is a member of the OIN, since the OIN pool is about OS-related patents. Also, OIN members cannot sue non-members using patents of other OIN members. Only the patent holder can sue.

Here is a description of how it works:

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license.php

As such the majority of MMIs patents (which are mostly patents on communication technology) are not relevant.


There is an agreement in place that Google will not sue a whole list of other companies over WebM patents it holds, and another agreement that Google will not sue other companies over OS-related patents it holds. All Google requires is that other companies do not sue it.

Now that Google is going to acquire a lot of patents from MMI, why should Google change this policy? I would think that the most likely thing for Google to do would be to start another community patent pool, similar in operation to OIN and the WebM pool, but for mobile-related patents. I'm sure that HTC, Sony Ericsson, LG and Samsung would jump right in.

Edited 2011-08-16 01:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

EGGcellent!
by 1c3d0g on Mon 15th Aug 2011 16:36 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

Question: do the set-top boxes from Motorola belong to this wireless group Google bought as well? If so, this is even BIGGER than I thought! Many cable companies in North America have Motorola as their set-top box by default, so Google will have a pretty massive user base right there.

Reply Score: 2

RE: EGGcellent!
by Bobthearch on Mon 15th Aug 2011 17:10 UTC in reply to "EGGcellent!"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Here's the Motorola splash page where you can go to either Motorola Solutions or Motorola Mobility and see which products belong to which division.

http://www.motorola.com/us

But yes, the set top boxes and many other home electronics (modems, phones, etc.) belong to the Mobility division.

http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Servic...

Reply Score: 2

RE: EGGcellent!
by libray on Mon 15th Aug 2011 21:35 UTC in reply to "EGGcellent!"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

Google in all homes, with computers or not, like it or not. Skynet has new roots. Look into your front facing camera. Thanks!

Reply Score: 2

Bogus claims or just a negotiating tactic?
by Staska on Mon 15th Aug 2011 17:54 UTC
Staska
Member since:
2011-08-15

Funny how you call my reports about Google hinting/threatening Android royalty collection as bogus claims, when those exact same hints/threats allowed me to predict Google Moto acquisition... 2 weeks ago

http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/02/quick-and-easy-fix-to-all-and...

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Being right two weeks ago does not magically make your claims from one week ago any less bogus.

Reply Score: 2

C:\NGRTLNS.W95
by kovacm on Mon 15th Aug 2011 18:01 UTC
kovacm
Member since:
2010-12-16

nice to see fusion of software and hardware under own roof! ...just like 30 years ago! (hello to all forgotten Suns, Commodore, Atari, SGI...)

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." by Alan Kay


btw Google should buy Oracle now - it would help then in ongoing trail about Java ;) ;)

Edited 2011-08-15 18:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: C:\NGRTLNS.W95
by tidux on Mon 15th Aug 2011 18:09 UTC in reply to "C:\NGRTLNS.W95"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Suns, Commodore, Atari


Don't know about SGI, but those three all used Motorola 680x0 processors in the 80s! What's next, HP making new serial terminals and porting VMS to x86_64 under the DEC brand?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: C:\NGRTLNS.W95
by kovacm on Mon 15th Aug 2011 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE: C:\NGRTLNS.W95"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

Suns, Commodore, Atari


Don't know about SGI, but those three all used Motorola 680x0 processors in the 80s!

that does not matter (btw SUN had own CPU: SPARC) - common to all these companies is that they made software AND hardware and they ware far more innovative than rest of PC world (Microsoft + OEM hardware vendors; in fact, Microsoft is main reason for slowing down IT industry)

Edited 2011-08-15 18:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: C:\NGRTLNS.W95
by libray on Mon 15th Aug 2011 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: C:\NGRTLNS.W95"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

What's that symbol in your avatar? A volcano? ;) Back to the OT, this deal only involves Motorola Mobility. I'm guessing that Motorola proper will stay the same.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: C:\NGRTLNS.W95
by MOS6510 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: C:\NGRTLNS.W95"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It's an Atari logo. Not as good as a Commodore logo though. :-p

Reply Score: 1

Hardware, not software patents
by Dr-ROX on Mon 15th Aug 2011 18:40 UTC
Dr-ROX
Member since:
2006-01-03

Well, Motorola has many real hardware patents, but in current situation Apple sues Android for purely software and design "patents". So in this case Google probably will countersue Apple for infriging real hardware patents from Motorola.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hardware, not software patents
by MollyC on Tue 16th Aug 2011 20:40 UTC in reply to "Hardware, not software patents"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

But Motorola itself didn't counter-sue apple with those patents. I think those patents are weak as far as litigation goes.

I also read that those patents are FRAND ("Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory") by law, as they were deemed vital to commerce. Which means that the patent owner is forced to license them at a reasonable, non-discriminatory price. The patent holder can't deny the license to anyone or jack up the price for a particular party. So how does one sue over such patents? If Google claims Apple is violating a FRAND license, then Google would be simply forced to license the patent to Apple at a reasonable price, and at the same rate they would charge anyone else. That's not going to scare Apple the least bit.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I also read that those patents are FRAND ("Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory") by law, as they were deemed vital to commerce. Which means that the patent owner is forced to license them at a reasonable, non-discriminatory price. The patent holder can't deny the license to anyone or jack up the price for a particular party. So how does one sue over such patents? If Google claims Apple is violating a FRAND license, then Google would be simply forced to license the patent to Apple at a reasonable price, and at the same rate they would charge anyone else. That's not going to scare Apple the least bit.


There is nothing to prevent Google from putting the MMI patents into a community cross-license pool, lets call it the "Android" CCL pool for the sake of argument, which would work similar to the WebM CCL pool.

http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/04/introducing-webm-community-cros...

This is, after all, consistent with Google's behaviour pattern with patents in the past. Buy a company and use its patents to protect everyone who wants to co-operate against those who want to extort money.

Members of the Android CCL pool could use the patents from the pool for zero cost, as long as they did not sue each other over any patents in the pool.

Non-members of the Android CCL pool would have to pay a license fee. Regardless if a given patent is FRAND or not, if a non-member uses it and does not pay a fee, then the patent holder can still sue the non-member.

This would still be fair and reasonable, yet it would still allow makers of Android devices who were members of the CCL pool to make their Android products free of royalties, with no threat of having to pay any bogus extortion taxes.

Edited 2011-08-16 23:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

El_Exigente Member since:
2007-01-08

Excellent point about FRAND!

Reply Score: 1

Updates!
by achmafooma on Mon 15th Aug 2011 18:55 UTC
achmafooma
Member since:
2008-09-05

Maybe this means we Motorola users will get software updates in a timely manner.

Android 2.3 'Gingerbread' came out in DECEMBER 2010, and still hasn't rolled out to the Droid 2 Global.

Reply Score: 1

Motorola?
by vondur on Mon 15th Aug 2011 19:13 UTC
vondur
Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not familiar with their patent portfolio, but I assumed that most of their patents were on the radio communications end, not the smart phone side of things. I can't imagine that HTC and Samsung are happy about this. Reminds me of when Microsoft introduced the Zune and was suddenly competing against their former partners.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Motorola?
by kovacm on Tue 16th Aug 2011 05:56 UTC in reply to "Motorola?"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

I'm not familiar with their patent portfolio, but I assumed that most of their patents were on the radio communications end, not the smart phone side of things. I can't imagine that HTC and Samsung are happy about this. Reminds me of when Microsoft introduced the Zune and was suddenly competing against their former partners.


http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/08/15/google-moves-android-from-...

as Alan K. said: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." ;) no compromise !!!

Microsoft is only company that manage to make ecosystem in which they (MS) take major profit and hardware vendors must pay to Microsoft high fee. All other company always try to control: hardware + software and all they make great products but unfortunately they was not Microsoft compatible and thus they ware crippled instantly.

Since Microsoft Windows compatibility in today world almost mean nothing (thanks to internet!), controlling software and hardware is simple MUST HAVE for one company to be able to make GREAT products.

Edited 2011-08-16 06:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Motorola?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 16th Aug 2011 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Motorola?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

RoughlyDrafted?

Seriously?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Motorola?
by kovacm on Tue 16th Aug 2011 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Motorola?"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

RoughlyDrafted?

Seriously?

Absolutely. Today is very easy to see that Daniel was right in lot of things on his site (at contrast to yours "I hate iPad, I hate iPad.... Than I bough iPad and than iPad is think that iPad is stupid coz buttons are in botton part of screen and than my feelings are completely _lost in space_" ;) )

Plz Thom, you are simple to young and too "narrow" to see things cleary.

no hard feelings. beside you think that all others, with different opinion, should be disregarded (Florian Mueller, Daniel E. D. ...)

Edited 2011-08-16 16:19 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Motorola?
by Neolander on Tue 16th Aug 2011 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Motorola?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well... Not a regular visitor of that website, but on a quick look it does seem pretty suspicious
-> The "About" page explicitly mentions "Apple" as one of the main topics. The other topics that are mentioned are relatively vague (technology, motorcycles, San Francisco).
-> The main columnist's web page only mentions "AppleInsider" as other media outlets at which this person has worked.
-> A significant part of that page is about the Apple software and services being used to make this website.
-> Half of the visitors use a Mac, which is far beyond the normal market share, even on a website. Cognitive dissonance theory tells us that this means that the contents of the website makes Mac users comfortable.
-> Quickly browsing through the archives shows me a list of articles that all, without a single exception, are good news about Apple, or advocating the Apple view of things on an Apple-related debate.

At a glance at least, it seems that this website is to be put next to the Daring Fireball, in the family of "RDF repeaters".

Edited 2011-08-16 16:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Motorola?
by kovacm on Tue 16th Aug 2011 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Motorola?"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

one more opinion: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/what-google-lostand...

"Ironically, buying Motorola Mobility makes Google a truer copy of the Apple business model. No longer a hands-off software provider with no financial interest in handset sales, Google now needs to worry about hardware implementation and direct profits."

and will Samsung, HTC make it into the exclusive circle who gain early access to Google’s “open” releases of Android, now that Google has a financial interest in returning Motorola to profitability?

like I said: hardware + software under one roof is superb for that ONE company (and customers), but hardly for hardware vendors like Samsung or HTC or LG relaying and depending on company that control software and hardware... ;)

Google, C:\ONGRATL.TNS for choosing best path ! ;)

Edited 2011-08-16 17:19 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Motorola?
by MollyC on Tue 16th Aug 2011 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Motorola?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

RoughlyDrafted?

Seriously?


LOL
Damn, I'd forgotten all about that Apple fanboy site. Hadn't heard about it in years, didn't know it still existed (forgot it ever existed, actually).

Reply Score: 2

dtahiti
Member since:
2011-01-13

From previous statements made at the Oppenheimer conference, Motorola CEO hinted at IP attacks against other Android manufacturers, saying "Intellectual property would be crucial to "differentiation" among Android designers" (just go to Motorola website and listen to the keynote webcast).

It's a smart move by Larry Page, for sure ! A win for both ! But saying, Apple and MS forced him to buy Motorola ? This is PR smoke screen ! We won't really know the real story behind it, but Motorola was probably also forcing Google too since they were struggling to make money (3 of the last 4 quarters were red for them).

For GOOG, one could argue that they knew from the beginning how critical it was to make Android the best it can be, regardless of patents, as long as Apple doesn't catch the whole market it would have become a big threat to them in case Apple switch to another search company. Since money buys you anything (good for them they have this almost-defacto-monopoly on search business), they could have told their engineers to just work and not focus on going the alternate route if a patent becomes problematic.

From a business point of view, it's really a smart move !

Reply Score: 1

Lets hope Larry chokes...
by TomF on Mon 15th Aug 2011 19:33 UTC
TomF
Member since:
2010-01-22

and Safra Katz walks into a lamppost...

ta
Tom

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lets hope Larry chokes...
by Soulbender on Mon 15th Aug 2011 19:45 UTC in reply to "Lets hope Larry chokes..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

why?

Reply Score: 2

Motorola WebOS
by Not2Sure on Mon 15th Aug 2011 20:41 UTC
Not2Sure
Member since:
2009-12-07

Shame that if this deal goes through, Motorola's inhouse "WebOS" project will probably never see the light of day now. Was some smart people working on it.

Was kinda hoping it would find its way to the surface as a niche product like Samsung has been able to do with Bada and Android in its product mix.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Motorola WebOS
by glarepate on Mon 15th Aug 2011 21:03 UTC in reply to "Motorola WebOS"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Yeah, from what I have seen of WebOS it looks great. But I think I did hear in the conference call today that Moto is now an all-Android house.

Hopefully HP will have some luck licensing out WebOS to other manufacturers (who will prioritize it above other OSes) like they said they wanted to do. Hard to see how that will happen or who it might be with though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Motorola WebOS
by Not2Sure on Mon 15th Aug 2011 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Motorola WebOS"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

I probably shouldn't have used the "WebOS" name. They weren't licensing HP/Palm WebOS. Motorola was rumored to be creating a new interal OS that relied on "web technologies" and it sounded alot from rumors like what WebOS had chosen for its userland.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Motorola "WebO"S
by glarepate on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Motorola WebOS"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

To be fair: you did put it in parentheses and I presumed you were referring to the HP product, so my comment was uninformed at best.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Motorola WebOS
by Lennie on Mon 15th Aug 2011 22:40 UTC in reply to "Motorola WebOS"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Why ?

I think Google made it pretty clear that, atleast at for now, the Motorola part they bought would stay independent.

Reply Score: 2

april fool's?
by bnolsen on Mon 15th Aug 2011 21:56 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

For a second there I had to check my calendar to make sure it isn't april fool's day. On the surface from the business side I really don't get it. Google has been doing pretty well just being an OS provider letting the hardware manufacturers do what they do.

If this purchase went down mostly due to patent deals...well things have sunk to a new low where being a patent troll pays the most.

Reply Score: 2

OIN
by The1stImmortal on Mon 15th Aug 2011 22:30 UTC
The1stImmortal
Member since:
2005-10-20

So I suppose this means that anyone who's a member of the OIN will be getting free access to any patents that affect Linux (and therefore Android) then... That would be a pretty big boon to the other Android sellers, assuming they're members (or become so).

Although tbh I've read over the stuff covered by the OIN crosslicense agreement and it's pretty darn limited.

Anyone know, Is there a more general version of the OIN (that basically is a general patent pool rather than linux-specific)? Or is it the best we have?

Reply Score: 1

Desperate but wrong move
by Babi Asu on Tue 16th Aug 2011 04:19 UTC
Babi Asu
Member since:
2006-02-11

Contrary to popular believe, MMI patents are not as powerful as people thought. Most of MMI patents are essential to industry standards, thus government ruled that they must be licensed with FRAND. So basically these patents are weaker than MS or Apple patents, and they can choose not to license their patents!

Google want to copy Apple way, i.e. producing integrated hardware-software. But they are using Zune track that was proven as a failure.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Desperate but wrong move
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 06:54 UTC in reply to "Desperate but wrong move"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Contrary to popular believe, MMI patents are not as powerful as people thought. Most of MMI patents are essential to industry standards, thus government ruled that they must be licensed with FRAND. So basically these patents are weaker than MS or Apple patents, and they can choose not to license their patents! Google want to copy Apple way, i.e. producing integrated hardware-software. But they are using Zune track that was proven as a failure.


In this you assume that Google have an intention to try to sue other parties using these patents.

Your assumption holds no water at all if Google's intention is simply to give everyone a large and safe set of mobile patents to use. This Google could do by putting the MMI patents into a community patent pool, just as Google did with WebM patents. Google could do even better than FRAND, they could license all of the patents completely free of charge (to any member of their CCL patent pool).

Then, when Microsoft or Apple come calling trying to sue any maker of an Android device, that company merely has to say ... "no, our device actually uses the methods licensed via the Google CCL pool patent number xyz. We already have a license for this functionality.".

This would appear to be a very, very clever way to protect any manufacturer wishing to make Android devices from persecution by patent trolls.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Desperate but wrong move
by MollyC on Tue 16th Aug 2011 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Desperate but wrong move"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

LOL
Is that why Motorola itself couldn't use the same argument against litigation filed by Apple and Microsoft? That argument didn't work for Motorola, why would it work for Google-owned Motorola?

And try to understand this: 13.5 billion dollars is two full years of Google profits. There's no way they spend that much money just to protect Android phone makers. If they wanted to protect Android phone makers, they could've just licensed the patents that Android is accused of infringing, for much less than 13 billion. No, Google bought Motorola and wants to make up for that 13 billion. Which means that they will do all they can to advance their own phones at the expense of their so-called "partners". They see the money that Apple makes and they want to follow that model.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Desperate but wrong move
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Desperate but wrong move"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

LOL Is that why Motorola itself couldn't use the same argument against litigation filed by Apple and Microsoft? That argument didn't work for Motorola, why would it work for Google-owned Motorola? And try to understand this: 13.5 billion dollars is two full years of Google profits. There's no way they spend that much money just to protect Android phone makers. If they wanted to protect Android phone makers, they could've just licensed the patents that Android is accused of infringing, for much less than 13 billion. No, Google bought Motorola and wants to make up for that 13 billion. Which means that they will do all they can to advance their own phones at the expense of their so-called "partners". They see the money that Apple makes and they want to follow that model.


I don't think so. I see a buisness model for Google which I think will work much better.

What Google could do is create a community cross-license (CCL) pool for mobile patnets, which would be set up and work in a similar fashion to the WebM CCL pool.

http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/04/introducing-webm-community-cros...
http://www.webm-ccl.org/

The idea would be that if you want to make an Android device, you join the CCL pool, throw in your own relevant patents, agree to refrain from suing any other members of the pool, and enjoy a license to use all of the patents in the pool for zero cost. Non-members still have to pay a fee for a license to any of the patents in the CCL pool.

AFAIK there are currently about 31 companies who make Android devices. If they pool all of their relevant patents, that would make for a very significant patent pool.

http://phandroid.com/manufacturers/

This way Android makers who are members of the CCL pool can get protection against patent trolls, pay no license fees, and yet make legally-licensed Android devices, and do it a lot cheaper than anyone can make iOS devices or WP7 devices.

Fantastic PR win for Google. Android wins. Google wins. Everyone wins (with cheaper devices, which can play WebM video by the way). Win, win, win (except for patent lawyers).

Edited 2011-08-16 23:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Well done!
by OSGuy on Tue 16th Aug 2011 08:44 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

This is the best Android news I have ever read! Well done Google & Motorola!

Q: Which company is likely to have more patents, Motorola or Nokia?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well done!
by OSGuy on Tue 16th Aug 2011 09:03 UTC in reply to "Well done!"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Let me give my self an answer to that question:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11205479/1/motorola-patents-a-google...

Patent Totals:

Motorola 17000
Nokia 10000
Nortel 6000

Unless there is something I misread/misunderstood?

Edited 2011-08-16 09:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Hitting MS
by dsmogor on Tue 16th Aug 2011 12:14 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

MS is now the most notorious troll in the mobile industry. So backfiring at them with Moto patents is a no brainer. The question is: would that be successfull?
MS doesn't produce phones so there's litte overlap with MS and MOTO technologies and thus a little attack area. Google can attack MS HV partners but they are also Google partners. The only one that is not is Nokia which can defend itself. Well anyway MS is blackmailing their own partners, so Google could still show some soft power twist here, but it is far from trivial.

Edited 2011-08-16 12:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hitting MS
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 23:08 UTC in reply to "Hitting MS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

MS is now the most notorious troll in the mobile industry. So backfiring at them with Moto patents is a no brainer. The question is: would that be successfull? MS doesn't produce phones so there's litte overlap with MS and MOTO technologies and thus a little attack area. Google can attack MS HV partners but they are also Google partners. The only one that is not is Nokia which can defend itself. Well anyway MS is blackmailing their own partners, so Google could still show some soft power twist here, but it is far from trivial.


Google can hit MS by taking away MS's ability to be a patent troll and extract any fees from makers of Android devices.

All it would take is for Google to create a community cross-license pool based on the MMI patents, and be joined by the likes of HTC, Samsung, LG, Sony Ericsson et al. Anyone and everyone who wants to make Android devices ... currently 31 manufacturers I believe, would join the pool. Makers of Android devices could switch to using Motorola designed hardware parts where there was any choice. Android could be adapted to use only techniques which were licensed within the pool.

Then MS no longer has anything at all over which to claim bogus "Microsoft taxes" to try to collect from software they did not write and hardware they did not design.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hitting MS
by dsmogor on Wed 17th Aug 2011 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Hitting MS"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

How are Moto patents invalidating MS patents? They are from different technologies. From what I see MS is using some trivial and old FAT stuff to do its stunts. Still it is enough to get 10$/device from HTC (to use your bevloved SD card as a storage in Windows).

Reply Score: 2

HTC
by dtahiti on Tue 16th Aug 2011 17:29 UTC
dtahiti
Member since:
2011-01-13

Some people here are going to fall in love with HTC now :

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/16/htc-sues-apple-over-patents-wants-...

Reply Score: 1

RE: HTC
by Neolander on Tue 16th Aug 2011 17:56 UTC in reply to "HTC"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Lol. I'm not for violence as a response to violence, especially when it involves nuclear patent arsenals, but... someone had it coming there ;)

Now, in a perfect world, Apple would get hit full force by the lawsuit, pay hefty fines, suffer great commercial damage, and officially adopt an anti-patent policy as a result. They would then sign a patent non-proliferation treaty with Google, stipulating that both will from this point exclusively patent final products, and not overly generic concepts.

...

Not going to happen without having the whole board of Apple executives fired, isn't it ?

Edited 2011-08-16 17:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Why is Nokia cribbing
by vikramsharma on Sat 20th Aug 2011 04:10 UTC
vikramsharma
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have not understood why Nokia is cribbing about the merger, Nokia is moving to the tropical fruit (Windows Mango) which is not Android and is not affected in the least by the Google buying Motorola.

Reply Score: 2