Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd May 2012 16:13 UTC
Google Google CEO Larry Page was interviewed on Charlie Rose recently, and there was certainly some interesting stuff in there. Sadly, the interview suffers from the curse of modern journalism in that it was all a bit timid and civil (no truly harsh and confronting questions), but despite that, it's still a good watch. Two quotes from Page really stood out to me.
Thread beginning with comment 519179
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: are you kidding?
by organgtool on Wed 23rd May 2012 21:17 UTC in reply to "are you kidding?"
organgtool
Member since:
2010-02-25

Let's break this down one company at a time:

Oracle: Not a competitor in the mobile space, so it wouldn't be logical for Google to think that they'd be sued by a company that doesn't compete in this sector.

Apple: Right in the summary for this article, Page mentions that Google had no knowledge that Apple was working on a mobile OS. Again, it wouldn't make sense for them to expect lawsuits from a company not in the mobile market.

Microsoft: Windows CE had been around for a while when Google purchased Android, but Microsoft has only become more offensive with their patents in the past few years since they are losing marketshare (and mindshare) in several of their markets.

Of course, anyone should anticipate legal battles if they become successful enough, but I don't think anyone in 2005 could have expected Google to be sued by even one of these companies over Android, let alone all three.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: are you kidding?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 24th May 2012 05:10 in reply to "RE: are you kidding?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Not Oracle, but sun was a major player in the mobile space. There is a reason why Sun wouldn't bless the apache harmony project as Java. Sun had licensed JavaME (Mobile Edition) to dumb phone makers. They have zero market now, due in no small part to google's actions. I totally understand why they *feel* like they've been screwed over. However they weren't in a legal sense.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: are you kidding?
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th May 2012 16:51 in reply to "RE[2]: are you kidding?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They have zero market now, due in no small part to google's actions.

Sorry, what?!?!
J2ME or Java ME was essentially killed off when iPhone came out without support for it. If anything, Oracle should be kissing Google's feet for keeping Java(in whatever form it is) in the mobile market.

Sun had the most to do with Java ME's destruction.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: are you kidding?
by zima on Sun 27th May 2012 02:51 in reply to "RE[2]: are you kidding?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Not Oracle, but sun was a major player in the mobile space. [...] Sun had licensed JavaME (Mobile Edition) to dumb phone makers. They have zero market now

Micro Edition.

Also, "zero" isn't quite right... NVM huge existing base, it still ships on tons of less expensive devices (I wouldn't be surprised if on more devices than all smartphone OS ones combined) - "dumb phones"* like Nokia S40 or most of what Samsung sells.
And not only "dumb phones" - Bada and Symbian include it, too.

Yeah, its prospects are not great, but it's out there and will still serve an important role for quite some time.
(I mean, one of the most popular j2me apps is the #1 mobile browser - and its users, usually on "dumb phone" handsets ( http://www.opera.com/smw/2011/11/ ), do increasingly seek out games, social apps, utilities http://www.opera.com/smw/2012/03/ )

* but really, if we'd try to apply any resemblance of rigorous definition, S40 is more of a smartphone than iPhone in its first year...
Or what about such very popular "dumb phones" like LG Cookie, Samsung Corby or Star? ("sub-Bada" touchscreens http://www.mobile-review.com/review/samsung-star2-s5260-rev-en.shtm... )

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: are you kidding?
by Tony Swash on Thu 24th May 2012 13:18 in reply to "RE: are you kidding?"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Of course, anyone should anticipate legal battles if they become successful enough, but I don't think anyone in 2005 could have expected Google to be sued by even one of these companies over Android, let alone all three.


To the best of my knowledge Apple has never sued Google.

Google on the other hand now owns a company that sued Apple, sued Apple before Apple sued it, and is suing several companies using FRAND patents.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: are you kidding?
by galvanash on Fri 25th May 2012 21:22 in reply to "RE[2]: are you kidding?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

To the best of my knowledge Apple has never sued Google.


Don't mince words... Apple suing Samsung/HTC is really Apple suing Google by proxy. Everyone knows it...

...and (Google) is suing several companies using FRAND patents.


And frankly I hope they lose. Badly. I would rather see these kinds of things worked out in the marketplace, not in the courts.

I would have greatly preferred Google figure out a less unseemly way to retaliate against Apple in this case - but let's be honest and call it what it is - retaliation. I don't like what Google is doing one bit, but do you think Google would have even considered buying Motorola Mobility had it not been for the HTC/Samsung lawsuits. Who started this in the first place???

I'm not defending Google - I'm defending sanity... Apple is a great company - I like their products and services. Google is also a great company - I like their stuff too. I also sometimes don't like things both of them do.

I think both companies are rather exceptional in their own way - and I don't feel a need to ridicule either of them to make myself feel better about the other one.

I'm just saying, it is possible to both appreciate Apple for the good things they do and deride them for the bad things.

You, on the other hand, just seem to always be defending Apple - it doesn't seem to matter what they do... Is there anything that Apple has ever done that you don't agree with?

Reply Parent Score: 4