Print 124 comment(s) - last by vol7ron.. on Jun 3 at 11:25 PM

Much like with HTC, U.S. Customs may decide to freeze shipments, with no guarantees of an expedient review

In June 2011, DailyTech carried a column entitled "Can Microsoft and Apple Kill Google's Android with Lawsuits?"

I. Motorola -- Next on the Banned List

Was the title a provocative one?  Surely, it was.

But it also sounds strangely prophetic, as news [PDF] has just arrived that a second member of the "elite three" of top Android manufacturers has been picked off.

This time the ban -- set in place by the U.S. International Trade Commission and scheduled to be enforced by U.S. Customs in 60 days -- is on Motorola Mobility Inc.'s (MMI) handsets and comes courtesy of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT).  The new ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission comes just weeks after U.S. Customs began to enforce a punitive and sweeping ban on imports of HTC Corp. (TPE:2498) Android handsets, sending the phonemaker's shares plunging.

After being slapped with an unfavorable preliminary ruling late last year, the official ruling found that Motorola infringed on one patent -- U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 -- which covers scheduling meetings.

Here's the feature that led to the ban. [Image Source: Microsoft via Engadget]

Much like the ruling against HTC this is a seemingly trivial item; one that Motorola and Android operating system developer Google Inc. (GOOG) could easily work around.  The big question is whether a workaround will do anything to prevent a ban.

After all, HTC removed all infringing features from its phones months ago, but U.S. Customs inexplicably opted to seize all its products anyways.  A month has gone by with no indication from customs when they are going to bother to review the handset shipments to confirm that the infringing features are gone, allowing them to be released to market.

II. ITC Warns That Bans are the Realm of Customs, Carry Little Guarantees

DailyTech has been in contact with an spokesperson for the U.S. International Trade Commission who placed the exclusion order (preliminary injunction).  The ITC says the bizarre delay is the responsibility of U.S. Customs and is out of its hands, writing:

Please be aware that it is Customs, not the ITC, which enforces the exclusion orders and inspects shipments at the border.
[T]he USITC is not involved in the Customs process.  That said, you should know that under USITC rules, HTC can file at the USITC for a ruling on its modified devices.  It has not done so.  But be aware that obtaining such a ruling would constitute another formal proceeding, and not necessarily a rapid proceeding.

Motorola released an understandably grim statement on the ITC exclusion order, commenting:

Microsoft started its ITC investigation asserting 9 patents against Motorola Mobility. Although we are disappointed by the Commission's ruling that certain Motorola Mobility products violated one patent, we look forward to reading the full opinion to understand its reasoning. Motorola Mobility will not experience any impact in the near term, as the Commission's ruling is subject to a $0.33/per unit bond during the 60 day Presidential review period. We will explore all options including appeal.

Motorola is fighting the ban on its handsets, much like HTC. [Image Source: Verizon Wireless]

Microsoft released a respectively gleeful statement from its deputy general counsel David Howard, who writes:

Microsoft sued Motorola in the ITC only after Motorola chose to refuse Microsoft's efforts to renew a patent license for well over a year. We're pleased the full Commission agreed that Motorola has infringed Microsoft's intellectual property, and we hope that now Motorola will be willing to join the vast majority of Android device makers selling phones in the US by taking a license to our patents.

With HTC's products seized indefinitely by U.S. Customs' arbitrary enforcers, one has to wonder how many months will go by once the Motorola ban takes effect before Customs bothers to check if Motorola has changed its product.

III. Could Samsung be the Last of the Android Rebels?

It's quite possible that within a couple months there could be only one major Android handset manufacturer on the U.S. market -- Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930).

Samsung building
Samsung could soon be the only Android phonemaker not banned in the U.S. 
[Image Source: Flickr]

Much like HTC, Motorola is in a precarious financial position.  Google was supposed to acquire Motorola Mobility and relieve its short term financial misfortune.  But China has held up the acquisition process, leaving the company on its own for now.

But if Motorola Mobility is going down based on the financial fallout of an import ban, it can lease do more damage to Microsoft than HTC could to Apple.  Unlike HTC, Motorola is a large company with many patents.  Using those patents, Motorola secured an injunction in Germany banning the sale of Windows and the Xbox 360.

A U.S. federal court ruled that it was illegal to enforce that injunction, threatening Motorola with huge fines.  But if Motorola feels in danger of going bankrupt, it may call the court's bluff and use its "nuclear option" in Germany.

Thus Microsoft may join Apple in successfully removing another major competitor from the market, but if it succeeds it will pay a much dearer cost.  

Of course, it's possible that pressure from Google and others could push U.S. Customs to avoid repeating the punitive ban on HTC's products with Motorola.  U.S. Customs could face steeper criticism in contributing to Motorola's device due to lack of an expedient review, given that Motorola is an American company (unlike HTC) and it would be costing American jobs.  

Ultimately, the best possible outcome for the Android alliance is for U.S. Customs to review the devices and impose no ban -- but there's no assurances that will happen.  In short, this is a dark day for the Android rebellion, but whether their movement has truly been crushed by the Microsoft and Apple empires is yet to be seen.

Sources: ITC, Microsoft; Motorola comments [via Engadget]

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By soloburrito on 5/18/2012 7:52:26 PM , Rating: 5
They monetize their patent portfolio like you'd expect a company to do.

Compare their behavior to Apple who isn't interested in collecting licensing fees. They just want to eliminate their competition in the court of law instead of on store shelves.

I have to wonder who the real innovators are here. Android has evolved a lot more since its introduction than the iPhone has. The biggest change to the iPhone UI has been the notification system which ironically was ripped off from Android.

By lecanard on 5/18/2012 9:35:36 PM , Rating: 5
Android had to evolve more because they started a long way behind iOS. But it's true that iOS copied notifications from them. I think I prefer the iOS version. Android is good at functionality but lags on the presentation side.

But you forgot the biggest phone UI innovator: Microsoft. Windows Phone's UI makes both Android and iOS look a bit dated.

iOS got the modern smartphone ball rolling, Android made some innovations on that while playing catch up in other areas. But Windows Phone is the one that doesn't look like the sea of icons I had 14 years ago on my palm pilot.

By Samus on 5/19/2012 2:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
Samsung (and HTC) is completely safe from Microsoft as they license the patents in question. Motorola Mobility/Google are the only Android handset maker that has ignored Microsoft.

Microsoft wants $15 for licensing features. Sounds pretty reasonable when you consider the net profits on these phones likely range from $50-$150 (think LG Optimus S through HTC One X)

If Apple on the other hand wanted to license IP at a fee as well for the same price, that'd be a problem for profit margins, and both would need to be re-negotiated ($10/ea?) in order to make any money.

By bennyg on 5/21/2012 7:51:50 AM , Rating: 4
How would you like if you had to pay 10-30% of your gathered savings each year because you have to park outside my house. Insignificant?

$15 a phone X number of phones sold = megabux. Banning a whole company's phone lineup - because of one patent which if I ruled IP law would never have been granted under the "you paid a patent attorney's fees for what insignificant POS feature" rule - massive overkill.

Yet how many millions of cheap Chinese knockoffs are traded all round the world every day!! These are the real infringers.

Patent trolls using dumb laws as competitive battleaxes. IP law is such a laughing stock it's no wonder why it has no respect.

By Digimonkey on 5/21/2012 8:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the particular patent in question was 33 cents per device.

By ipay on 5/20/2012 6:58:26 PM , Rating: 5
You are kidding right?

The Android notification bar has ALWAYS been there since Android v1.0 (The first Android v1.0 production phone released in Sep 2008 and therefore this feature was developed well before that.)

By tastyratz on 5/21/2012 8:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment was valid up until the part where you tried to troll in that last unrelated foul ball on politics.
Yes this does hurt the consumers, but none of the decisions here are even up to consumers. It all has to be battled out in court, where everything seems to happen with today's companies.

By GotThumbs on 5/21/2012 11:15:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'll just hold on to my Moto Droid2 longer.

There is no way in He.. that I'll purchase an Apple product, and I'm NOT interested in a windows phone.

Android gives me the controls and functionality I want.

This kind of petty business practices just further displays the degradation of today's society. Do away with all the lawyers...and you'll take a giant set back to rational and reasonable expectations for all. Not all lawyers are bad, but I feel a majority of them are. Just so tired of the B.S. going on these days.

Best wishes

By vol7ron on 6/3/2012 11:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm not kidding - that is not the same thing. That's like saying Apple had notifications because it had a number when it got a new email or text.

The discussion was about a notification menu with a quick access message display. If you even look at your [unreliable] wiki article you will see that it was Honeycomb that "Added System Bar, featuring quick access to notifications, status, and soft navigation buttons, available at the bottom of the screen"

That is what the discussion of the article was about.

By Jeffk464 on 5/18/2012 11:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, I make a big fuss about boycotting apple for this type of thing, but I really need Microsoft.

By mcnabney on 5/21/2012 9:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really?

I use Win7 right now, but the travesty that is Win8 is going to have me leaving the MS environment completely in 3-4 years. They don't have a real monopoly anymore, just a psychological one.

By Pirks on 5/21/2012 12:25:10 PM , Rating: 3
their OSX desktop OS is a brilliant product, and not restricted in any way (unlike Windows)
It is VERY MUCH restricted to the Apple's very expensive hardware that is way overpriced for a lot of consumers, you just have to get your head of your ass to see this obvious thing.

By ritualm on 5/21/2012 5:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
Then care to explain why there is an entire stickied thread in AnandTech forums on getting OS X to run on actual PCs?

People have managed to run OS X off a Nokia smartphone. Pirks, you're BS'ing.

By JPForums on 5/22/2012 10:36:22 AM , Rating: 3
I've got to go with Pirks on this one. It is a violation of the EULA to install OS X on a non-apple product. The fact that people have figured out a way around this restriction doesn't mean the restriction doesn't exist. Like it or not, Apple's products and ecosystem are some of the most exclusive and restrictive out there. Of course, this isn't a problem if you favor Apple products and only use them the way they were designed to be used.

By ritualm on 5/22/2012 9:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's a violation of the EULA, sure... EULAs have been proven to be indefensible in court.

Talk away how it's restrictive and all. If you're in the hacking community, EULA is just another window prompt designed to be ignored. Unless you're a lawyer, you'd simply hit Accept instead of reading every line of that document.

By darkhawk1980 on 5/21/2012 12:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
Keep thinking that in your thin walled glass garden....

Sadly, 'many top windows games' do not run natively in Linux (OSX is not included in this....and even their 'gaming experience' is still rather limited). The fact of the matter remains, Windows still has a stranglehold on the gaming community at large. Whether you want to admit that or not doesn't matter to me.

I hate windows as much as the next guy, but given the many things I do do not have easily usable alternatives in Linux, I'm stuck using what I use. Because it does 'just work'.

By JPForums on 5/22/2012 11:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
Say what you will about Apple's phone and tablet, but their OSX desktop OS is a brilliant product, and not restricted in any way (unlike Windows).

I'll give you OS X has a generally polished and attractive UI. Their investment in power saving (an thus battery life) tech could even be called brilliant. However, OpenBSD's inherent security only gives them a solid foundation to build on. Apple would do well to give security a more primary position in their software development model. A transition to non-periodic (as soon as it's ready) security patches (a la Linux community) might also be beneficial if done correctly.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the suggestion that OS X is not restricted. Linux/Unix are what I consider the least restricting OSs. Apple's OSs are some of the most restricting. However, rather that go into a detailed defense of what is considered common knowledge in the tech community, I will assume that we aren't addressing the same points and request that you elaborate on OS X's lack of restrictions. Examples would help.

On top of that, modern Linux desktop distributions are smooth and polished, and with Crossover Games running many of the top Windows games natively on Linux, there really is no reason at all to throw more money at the Microsoft behemoth.

I agree. For non gamers, several distributions are quite intuitive and (assuming no prior knowledge) just as easy to use as OS X/Windows. With Windows 8 being a significant departure from previous versions, it will be a good time to push Linux. Game support is getting better, but I think a unified gaming platform across distributions will be necessary to really push it. Otherwise, game developers will target only one or a few distributions.

By Argon18 on 5/21/2012 12:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
No, you've missed the boat altogether. Apple *did* offer to negotiate licensing with HTC. HTC declined. Hence the legal injunction.

Patents and competition in the marketplace.
By Initium on 5/19/2012 5:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't it wonderful how something originally conceived to protect is now being used to destroy. Do we really want a world where there the only choice is Microsoft or Apple? And aren't they really the same thing anyway? Microsoft owns a large chunk of Apple, doesn't it? Just how much innovation will be required after Android has been destroyed? Competition improves the breed. Monopoly in incestuous and breeds torpidity. Is this really in the best interests of the consumer? Call me idealistic but I would prefer a world with all these companies competing for my hard earned dollar.

RE: Patents and competition in the marketplace.
By Tony Swash on 5/19/12, Rating: 0
By StevoLincolnite on 5/19/2012 2:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
Some companies innovate their products because they want to and not just because of competition.

Sometimes when a company has a market cornered and it is saturated, a company has to innovate in order to resell a new product to old customers to keep the profit train going.

By Jaybus on 5/21/2012 3:39:55 PM , Rating: 3
Yes. And they are particularly targeting software patents, of which I would guess at least 90% should not even be granted. For example, Apple's patent on tapping a phone number in a web page to make a call. It's the same concept as a hyperlink, a concept that predates even HTML. E-mail clients have for years created mailto: hyperlinks from e-mail addresses found in plain text messages. The patent covers, essentially, creating a "phoneto:" hyperlink for phone numbers found in plain text, and is in every way analogous to creating mailto: hyperlinks for e-mail addresses found in plain text. No way that should be a patentable concept, because it is an obvious extension of the same old concept.

Why wasn't it done before if it is so obvious? Because the "smart" phones did not previously have the CPU speed and RAM to implement the search quickly enough. That it is obvious should be easy to prove. How many of you had cell phones years ago and wished that you could just click on a phone number in a txt to dial it? Thousands of people, maybe more, thought of this concept long before a patent application was made.

I believe the plethora of software patents in recent years is nothing more than Micosoft and Apple attempting to stifle open source software in general. Soon, it will not be possible to write a piece of code that doesn't infringe one of the tens of thousands of patents. It is pretty much already impossible to write a new video codec that can be legally used.

These patents are horse!!!!
By masamasa on 5/18/2012 8:14:38 PM , Rating: 5
Time to shutdown the pathetic organization that issued them and replace them with a more reliable alternative.

Eye for an eye
By ritualm on 5/19/2012 1:04:52 AM , Rating: 5
I can honestly say this is expected. When Motorola's aiming for Microsoft's jugular vein at Germany earlier this month by securing a preliminary ban on almost everything MS sells over there, it comes as no surprise Redmond will use this ITC ban as a bargaining chip.

Moto messed with the wrong company.

By rauelius on 5/20/2012 11:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's an easy fix, and if MS and Apple don't like it, take it up with Google...At least it would be a fair fight at that point.........Jeez are these companies run by freaking idiots or what!?!?!??!

IP is a bane...
By jazzwitherspoon on 5/21/2012 4:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
Intellectual Property law and the Empire once known as the USA are totally out of control.

By BurnItDwn on 5/21/2012 12:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like the best solution is to set up factories in the US and build the phones domestically... Customs can't stop them then :)

Consumer cattle
By mars2k on 5/21/2012 1:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
In the US our laws are used against us. We’re treated like cattle. Who owns the market? Who owns access to the market? Who gets to put their brand on my hindquarters without my say-so?
Remember the drug wars? Who could buy Canadian pharmaceuticals and who couldn’t because big-pharma lobbies paid off the politicians?
I believe in protecting intellectual property but the consumer is the injured party here. Over what?
As cell phones go both Apple (remember the bumper fix?) and Windows phones (Windows…enough said) leave a lot to be desired. I’ll take Android any day.
It really ticks me off

World Trade Court
By LTGJAMAICA on 5/22/2012 1:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
All Patent laws and issues should be handled by a World Trade Court that is backed by the WTO it seems every Major nation have varying patent laws and this causes confusion

Live and die by the sword
By michael2k on 5/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: Live and die by the sword
By chromal on 5/18/2012 7:39:57 PM , Rating: 5
Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 covers data-tapping -- creating actionable links in a text document, and displaying a menu of options, such as to call or save a phone number.

Sounds like a pretty much BS patent to me. Of course, that more or less describes all software patents. They would patent breathing if they could, and execute anyone who didn't pay a licensing fee to do so. Disgusting.

RE: Live and die by the sword
By mondo1234 on 5/18/2012 8:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung just paid the money to MS.

RE: Live and die by the sword
By Pirks on 5/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: Live and die by the sword
By mondo1234 on 5/18/2012 8:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Live and die by the sword
By JasonMick on 5/18/2012 8:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
Really, Pirks??? You commented on the article...

As for the argument that Motorola somehow earned this by refusing Microsoft's licensing demands, that overlooks the fact that a ban would still have been likely given that Apple is suing it.

Licensing from Microsoft didn't save HTC, that's for sure.

Pay the mob, get murdered tomorrow
Don't pay them and be murdered today. What's the difference?

RE: Live and die by the sword
By mondo1234 on 5/18/2012 8:34:21 PM , Rating: 3
Pay the mob, get murdered tomorrow Don't pay them and be murdered today. What's the difference?

In the big picture, it doesnt matter. Samsung is the Apple of the android world. You already know that they keep the lions share of the android profits. There are only crumbs left for the rest of the companies to feed on. Even though they have different levels of starvation, most of the Android companies are financially weak. If Google provides the bowl, only Samsung has anything to put in it. If the trend continues most will starve to death anyway. Motorola is just lower hanging fruit.

RE: Live and die by the sword
By Jeffk464 on 5/18/2012 11:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung also provides the screens for the other manufacturers.

RE: Live and die by the sword
By Pirks on 5/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: Live and die by the sword
By mondo1234 on 5/18/2012 8:22:56 PM , Rating: 3
sorry, it took me about 0.19 seconds, but I could only come up with 99,600,000 results

RE: Live and die by the sword
By TSS on 5/18/2012 8:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
So anybody who can't afford the licences shouldn't go into this business? And all licences are on completly valid and neccesary patents? If not, only the rich should be allowed to contest it?

Really patents shouldn't be like picking up a gun, where as soon as you do you become a target for everybody else who has a gun. Used to be you could actually compete.

But i guess the new ideal for starting your own company is produce as little as possible, hype that up as much as possible, then offer yourself for sale to one of the monopolies and walk away rich. Instead of, yknow, getting rich because alot of people really benifited from something you actually produced.

RE: Live and die by the sword
By JediJeb on 5/20/2012 3:51:19 PM , Rating: 4
But i guess the new ideal for starting your own company is produce as little as possible, hype that up as much as possible, then offer yourself for sale to one of the monopolies and walk away rich. Instead of, yknow, getting rich because alot of people really benifited from something you actually produced.

Exactly! People who start companies because they like to make something other than just money are few and far between today.

I remember my great uncle talking about when he worked for Belknap hardware during the Great Depression. The company was a family owned business which from the mid 1800's through it's end in 1986 was one of the largest manufacturers of tools around. They always treated their employees well and during the depression the owners and executives reduced their pay to what would be equivalent of 3 days per week, because they had reduced the workforce to 3 day work weeks. This kept the company in business and workers employed even if at a lower wage. I doubt any company would do that now days, most would just sell off what they could and take the money and run. What probably ended up killing them off was continuing to produce high quality tools instead of simply importing cheap junk like what seems to sell these days. My father and I still have hammers and hand saws made by them that are probably 50 years old and will out perform just about anything you can buy today. We need more companies that are concerned with making great products while looking out for their employees today than those just looking to maximize profits while cutting quality and screwing over the workforce. I have seen many companies that once they make an IPO and the focus changes to satisfying the stockholders instead of the customers they just disappear or you only find their products in the bargain bins with the rest of the cheap junk.

Another Pirate Dies
By macdevdude on 5/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: Another Pirate Dies
By Nortel on 5/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: Another Pirate Dies
By phatboye on 5/18/2012 7:59:53 PM , Rating: 5
Microsoft invented the operating system and Apple invented the smartphone.

That is quite frankly the most ignorant line I have ever read on this site and believe me I have read a lot of ignorant post here.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By 1ceTr0n on 5/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: Another Pirate Dies
By elleehswon on 5/18/2012 8:07:20 PM , Rating: 3
Unix, IBM's first mainframe OS's predate microsofts' "anything" os by 20 years.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By TakinYourPoints on 5/18/2012 9:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
Hell, MS-DOS was a move to take market away from the already existing CP/M, and Gates and Co bought it from another programmer for only $50k

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By Dr of crap on 5/21/2012 8:30:14 AM , Rating: 3
The fact that you ALL are even talking about this shows how smart you are.
It's a freaking phone!

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By amanojaku on 5/18/2012 9:09:19 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft invented the operating system and Apple invented the smartphone.
That is quite frankly the most ignorant line I have ever read on this site and believe me I have read a lot of ignorant post here.
Yeah, macdevdude basically said "I won't let a little thing like reality influence my irrational bias." Not the hallmark of an intelligent mind.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By TheEinstein on 5/19/2012 5:25:25 AM , Rating: 5
Microsoft reinvented the Operating System and Apple reinvented Smart Phones


RE: Another Pirate Dies
By Helbore on 5/19/2012 1:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure macdevdude is a troll and knows they're spouting irrational junk, just to wind people up. There's no way in hell anyone is actually THAT ignorant.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By elleehswon on 5/18/2012 8:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
crap feature phones, eh? Care to put your iTard 4s up against my Rezound and see which one has more features, battery life, is more technically sound, and which one works the other in a per pixel graphics benchmark? While we're at it, how about any benchmark you can think of. We'll even include data transfer rates. Then, we can have a discussion about which mobile platform gets hacked first at every mobile phone hacking competition. Well, not that it's much of a discussion. We just get to say how great apple phones are at getting hacked.

My Android phone will eat your iTard 4s alive.

oh, just for funzies, we'll drop them both on the pavement and see which one recovers(after taking the cover off, of course :) )

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By The Insolent One on 5/18/2012 8:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
OK, let's find out.

You drop yours first...

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By elleehswon on 5/18/2012 11:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
nah, i have a 20 month old that's already dropped it onto the pavement 3 times. a few small chunks missing from the edges, but nothing aside from that.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By EnzoFX on 5/18/2012 8:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
Wow some e-penis you have there. Benchmark performances alone won't get you far with the average consumer, so who really cares? As far as features, do you actually use them all? Would most people? Prob not. I'm not saying it's not nice to have them, I'm just saying it's neither here nor there. I don't even see how it's related to the article.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By elleehswon on 5/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: Another Pirate Dies
By Jeffk464 on 5/18/2012 11:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I accidently dropped my Samsung nexus out of the cab of a semi. Kind of strange touch interface stopped working but after about 3 reboots started working and hasn't hickuped since. An all glass and metal phone would most definitely have broken.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By ritualm on 5/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Another Pirate Dies
By xsilver on 5/19/2012 5:35:45 AM , Rating: 1
for some reason about every 1 in 10 people I see with an iphone is using it with a cracked screen. (tweens especially)

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/19/2012 6:13:40 AM , Rating: 1
What absolute nonsense.

I've never seen anyone with a cracked iPhone screen.

Of course, generally you will see a lot more iPhones than any other phone so statistically you would still expect to see more cracked ones, but 1 in 10 is just anecdotal gibberish.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By talozin on 5/19/2012 6:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
I've never seen anyone with a cracked iPhone screen.

Never? My brother alone has cracked two of them, both quite dramatically (spiderwebbed glass and all).

I have no idea how he does it; I've dropped mine probably dozens of times to no effect. But they are definitely crackable.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/19/2012 7:16:24 AM , Rating: 1
Fair enough, talozin. I do believe your more realistic anecdote.

I honestly don't know anyone who has broken their iPhone screen though, that is true, but I agree it could definitely happen and perhaps more easily than some Android handsets.

I would just question claims of 1 in 10, that's my main dispute :-)

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/19/2012 7:16:24 AM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, talozin. I do believe your more realistic anecdote.

I honestly don't know anyone who has broken their iPhone screen though, that is true, but I agree it could definitely happen and perhaps more easily than some Android handsets.

I would just question claims of 1 in 10, that's my main dispute :-)

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By Dorkyman on 5/21/2012 1:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
You can easily crack the screen by just saying the word "android" into Siri. Presto.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By ritualm on 5/21/2012 5:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
I have VERY clumsy hands.

Laptop? Dropped it, instantly bricked the hard drive inside and also damaged some other internal components. That said, I give my computers a lot more care than I do with everything else at home.

A bottle of olive oil? Yeah I dropped that, broke the bottle on the hard kitchen floor in a brand-new apartment unit. It's not fun cleaning the mess.

An UPS battery module (SLA, with cracked plastic casing from excess external heat)? I dropped it, made a noticeable dent on a portion of laminated wood flooring.

Glass pot lids? Broke the whole thing. The glass itself continued to break into fragments while I collected the debris.

My phone? All the time. All the people who downvoted my previous post should know this: I've dropped my iPhone well over a dozen times. Its glass surface should have been cracked by now, right?

It wasn't. FWIW, no visible cracks anywhere on the phone, for now anyway.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/19/2012 5:30:12 AM , Rating: 3
Care to put your iTard 4s up against my Rezound and see which one has more features, battery life, is more technically sound, and which one works the other in a per pixel graphics benchmark?

Is this guy serious?

'More features' - the iPhone has access to the largest app library in the world, instantly giving it more features than your rezound. Anything you may mention such as SD card, HDMI, removable battery - there are < $10 work-arounds so they are no problem. If you name 4G, pretty much all of Europe and most of the world doesn't have 4G yet, and you will be limited by your data plan even if unlimited far before 3G becomes a problem. iPhone also has the best voice control in Siri, highest DPI screen, and the fastest GPU/CPU combination compared to the Rezound.

'Battery life' - Manufacturer rated talk time for the Rezound is 6 hours. 14 hours for the iPhone.

'More technically sound' - What kind of a nonsense statement is that? Apple leads the way in customer satisfaction and reported faults across the entire mobile industry, so is clearly superior in that regard.

'Graphics benchmark' - you do realise the Rezound has the Adreno 220 compared to the much, much faster PowerVR SGX543MP2 in the iPhone 4S, right? It's not even comparable.

Seriously, every point you made is in fact a weakness, which is why the Rezound is such a failed phone, and your comment matches it.

As for iOS vs Android security...

'The reason why Android attacks are both popular and cheap is because they are easy to produce compared to iOS exploits.'

Your comments couldn't really be any more clueless, could they?

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/19/2012 5:40:23 AM , Rating: 2

Android – $30,000
iOS – $100,000 – $250,000

As expected, exploit prices are determined by two main factors: 1. The platform’s popularity – hence the higher price for Chrome and IE exploits compared to those for Firefox and Safari; 2. How challenging it is to crack the respective platform — which is why iOS hacks are the most expensive out there, while Adobe Reader exploits are the cheapest around. Unfortunately for us Android fans, according to one software exploit dealer quoted by Forbes, the reason why Android attacks are both popular and cheap is because they are easy to produce, while “ones that can penetrate the iPhone are rare and pricey”. I’m not sure how the situation changes for Android smartphones with security solutions installed, but unfortunately, there are more and more reasons to get one.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By elleehswon on 5/19/2012 9:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
more like... you'll charge more for an ios zero day exploit because you know a high percentage of iphones will be at the same version. more demand will drive the price up.

This is the same case for desktop os's too(especially desktop os's).

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By elleehswon on 5/19/2012 9:44:12 AM , Rating: 1
you must have missed the "per pixel benchmark". I also said "MY Rezound" :) undervolted, overclocked, rooted, custom rom.

While we're on the gpu discussion, have you seen what shadowgun looks like on the ios versus a high end android, specifically the adreno 220s. Looks like crap on the iphone 4s, much more detail, better lighting, more objects(flags waving, etc).

Access to the largest app store? Please, as far as capability, the microsoft app store has the same as the android and apple's app store. 99% of those markets are knockoffs and clones of something else. Hell, the webos app store probably had the same amount of capability from apps. While we're talking battery life, i get 3 days out of mine, with no degredation in capability.

Apple leads in customer service? really? Do you know how many times i've had to call motorola customer support or htc customer support? none. I've had 4 droid phones and 1 iphone.(had the iphone 4 second)(shortlived, felt like a toy(overlooked that, battery was faulty on arrival(worked, but kept getting very hot on the backside)).

more technically sound as in better camera, faster cpu, more ram, no garbage huge proprietary worthless cable(odd that it's still 5 pins at the other end of the cable, eh?)

pick a smartphone hacking convention in the last 2 years and see how many end up hacking the iphone first. The iphone is no where near as secure. Their control over their market is better, but that's not the androids os's fault, that's google.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/20/12, Rating: 0
RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/20/2012 3:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
Survey published 15th May 2012:

The survey says cellphone users are most satisfied with Apple’s line of iPhones, and least satisfied with Research in Motion’s (RIM) Blackberry smartphones.

Still, in the cellphone space, Apple ranks 9 points higher than the industry average of 74, and 8 points more than runner-ups HTC, LG and Nokia. And if Apple’s eight-year run as ACSI’s top-rated PC manufacturer is any indication, you can expect the iPhone maker to maintain its top spot in cellphone customer satisfaction too.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By Source9 on 5/20/2012 8:32:45 AM , Rating: 2
You don't get it, do you? Whatever you do with your Rezound, doing the same on the iPhone would last LONGER. It's battery life is BETTER, go and look up all the articles discussing how poor the battery is on the Rezound. I used to own an iPhone 4 and I didn't have to charge it for 6-7 days at a time sometimes.

I call Bull Sh1t on this !!!

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By elleehswon on 5/21/2012 12:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
the rezound has a lower ppi? how do you figure that. it's 342ppi. the highest of any smartphone on the market. i think you've smoked yourself retarded. Please, just go back to your mac and play COD4. Men are talking.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/21/2012 7:11:36 AM , Rating: 1
the rezound has a lower ppi? how do you figure that. it's 342ppi. the highest of any smartphone on the market.

You're absolutely right, the PPI is better. This is the first correct point you've made. Ironically, it digs an even deeper hole for your 'per pixel' claim. Again, lets remember that you are claiming that although the iPhone 4S has a fundamentally faster GPU, and fewer pixels which need to be driven by said GPU, the Rezound somehow has a better GPU 'per pixel' ?

You're proving why you're wrong.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By agent2099 on 5/20/2012 11:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Rezound actually has higher DPI than iPhone. Also, what are these $10 workarounds for lack of sd card and removable battery?

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/21/2012 7:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
Rezound actually has higher DPI than iPhone. Also, what are these $10 workarounds for lack of sd card and removable battery?

Yes, the PPI is higher, sorry. I was assuming from his 'faster GPU per pixel' comment that there must be fewer pixels (or his comment wouldn't make any sense). As for workarounds:

Portable charger - £9 (Cheaper than a replacement battery btw)

SD / USB reader - £6.49

HDMI adapter - £14.99

Most users wouldn't need any of the above, but they are all cheap.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By sweatshopking on 5/19/2012 9:40:41 AM , Rating: 2
how about you put yours up against a nokia lumia 900?

you wanna have a drop test? how about you use that rezound as a mofo'ing hammer? like a real phone. I like the idea of android, but it's just not competitive in reality with the competition. i have android devices, but they don't compare to my wp7 stuff, or my old iOS stuff.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By sprockkets on 5/19/2012 8:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
Both the Lumia phones and all HTC phones , even the ancient mytouch, all use gorilla glass. The iphone doesn't use gorilla glass but some other corning glass.

So yes, it will hammer away just fine.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/20/2012 3:05:45 AM , Rating: 2
Why are people so uninformed? Seriously....

Apple DOES use Gorilla glass in the iPhone.

According to Jonathan Ive of Apple, speaking on the iPhone 4, which uses Gorilla Glass, it is "comparable in strength to sapphire crystal but about thirty times harder than plastic.

Seriously guys, why spout uneducated drivel?

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/20/2012 3:22:23 AM , Rating: 3
From Steve Jobs' autobiography:

"Jobs decribed the type of glass Apple wanted for the iPhone, and Weeks told him that Corning had developed a chemical exchange process in the 1960s that led to what they dubbed "gorilla glass". It was incredibly strong, but it had never found a market, so Corning quit making it. Jobs said he doubted it wasd good enough, and he started explaining to Weeks how glass was made. This amused Weeks, who of course knew more than Jobs about that topic. "Can you shut up," Weeks interjected, "and let me teach you some science?" Jobs was taken aback and fell silent. Weeks went on to the whiteboard and gave a tutorial on the chemistry, which involved ion-exchange process that produced a compression layer on the surface of the glass. This turned Jobs around, and he said he wanted as much gorilla glass as Corning could make within six months. "We don't have the capacity," Weeks replied. "None of our plants make the glass now." "Don't be afraid," Jobs replied. This stunned Weeks, who was good-humoured and confident, but not used to Jobs's reality distortion field. He tried to explain that a false sense of confidence would not overcome engineering challenges, but that was a premise that Jobs had repeatedly shown he didn't accept. He stared at Weeks un-blinking. "Yes, you can do it", he said. "Get your mind around it. You can do it." As Weeks retold this story, he shook his head in astonishment. "We did it in under six months," he said. "We produced a glass that had never been made." Corning's facility in Harrisburg, Kentucky, which had been making LCD displays, was converted overnight to make gorilla glass full-time. "We put our best scientists and engineers on it, and we just made it work." In his airy office, Weeks had just one framed memento on display. It's a message Jobs sent the day the iPhone came out: "We couldn't have done it without you."

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By sprockkets on 5/20/2012 4:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
Good, then explain why this is the case:

Link shortened to bypass the spam filter.

Apple nor Corning will confirm that gorilla glass is on the CURRENT iphone.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By TakinYourPoints on 5/20/2012 5:18:24 PM , Rating: 2

As to why it can crack, it is likely because the glass is nearly flush with the corners. Gorilla Glass is tough as hell but hit it at the right angle and it can still crack.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By sprockkets on 5/20/2012 8:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your link presents no clear conclusive evidence that it does. Apple's PR page about job creation for Corning's factory could just mean the fact that they made jobs for them back in 2007 for the original iphone. The factory could just as well now make glass for everyone else since the rest of the industry uses them, and of course, unlike apple has no issues giving credit where credit is due.

Apple seems to have confirmed that it does, in the newly posted "Job Creation" page, where Apple says that it has created more than 500,000 jobs in the U.S., directly or indirectly. An extract from the page: Corning employees in Kentucky and New York who create the majority of the glass for iPhone The page, however, doesn't mention the iPad, or the iPod touch for that matter. Also surprising: Corning didn't figure in Apple's list of suppliers, which the company released as a part of its supplier responsibility program.

Now, some have speculated that just the front has gorilla glass, and not the back. But I'm not interested in speculation.

Bottom line is, Apple's MO is to make sure every component is branded apple, and will not at any costs give anyone credit to its product, even though Intel, Qualcomm, Samsung, LG, and others have a big hand in the product.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/21/2012 7:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
Your link presents no conclusive evidence that it doesn't.

The Steve Jobs autobiography that I quoted, does. And that ended the argument. iPhones use Gorilla glass. In fact, Jobs' vision is the reason why ANY phone uses Gorilla glass today, they only started that company up again because of Jobs, which led to other manufacturers copying.

It's standard for Apple to be secretive to protect their technological lead, it's the way in everything that they do, it's an intelligent and logical approach and they are not obligated to go around telling anyone who manufactured what to their designs. Just like Rolls Royce don't go around saying Monkey supplier X built this small part in the way we told them to - it's irrelevant.

Every single company, including Samsung, outsources much of all of their phone technology and barely any of those subordinate manufacturers get named - it's just not how it's done. The only reason other manufacturers name Gorilla glass is to boost sales, not to give credit. Who cares if and when and why companies give credit for what, anyway, the original point is that you stated iPhones don't use Gorilla glass. You were simply 100% factually wrong.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By testerguy on 5/21/2012 7:03:26 AM , Rating: 2
Drop tests depend on a whole range of factors, such as the shape of the glass, the weight of the phone, the internal structure of the phone, how the glass is integrated with the case, etc.

You can put the same Gorilla glass on different handsets and it will behave differently, it doesn't mean it's not Gorilla Glass.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By DiscoWade on 5/18/2012 8:49:09 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft invented the operating system and Apple invented the smartphone.

Hmm ... and all this time I thought Bill Gates bought QDOS from a company in Seattle and changed its name to MS-DOS. Thanks for clearing that up. And I also thought that Xerox invented the GUI. But I now wonder if I was wrong ... And for some strange reason, I thought that Symbian and Blackberry had smartphones before Apple, but I guess I was wrong about that too. I guess my old Blackberry really wasn't a smartphone.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By Jeffk464 on 5/18/2012 11:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
Blackberry was a "pretty bright" phone, not quite smart.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By nafhan on 5/18/2012 10:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft invented the operating system and Apple invented the smartphone.
...and Motorola invented the cell phone. Period. You can very easily find some patents for some incredible technology (both old and more recent) from Motorola. Mostly licensed under FRAND terms, because with real technology (real = NOT "swipe to unlock" type patents) you need to get everyone using it for it to be successful.

What does "MS invented the OS" mean? I can't think of any reasonable context where that's factual. The "OS" is about as old as computing, and even the GUI was around before MS created one.

Apple invented the iPhone and was the first to do a really good job with a touchscreen OS (their hardware has always been nice, too). That's a big deal, but very different from "inventing the smartphone." I'd pin "inventing the smartphone" on Palm, but more realistically, I'd say the smartphone was the culmination of ideas from previous generations of both handheld computing and cell phones with input from numerous companies - not just Apple...

Also, starting a post with name calling is an excellent way to distinguish yourself as a truly thoughtful individual.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By ians55 on 5/21/2012 3:16:20 PM , Rating: 1
It's just incredible level of ignorance in one person. But what else you can expect from mac fanboy.

You really need to read about Motorola before posting some BS here.

RE: Another Pirate Dies
By JediJeb on 5/21/2012 4:33:23 PM , Rating: 1
What did HTC and Motorola do?

Ummm Motorola pretty much invented the cellphone, without which the smartphone would not exist.

Maybe Motorola should force a ban on Apple and Microsoft because their smartphones can make phone calls?

Somewhere... out there... Tony is smiling happily
By Pirks on 5/18/12, Rating: -1
By DigitalFreak on 5/18/2012 8:32:45 PM , Rating: 3
Is Tony dead? Where's his grave so I can piss on it.

By kleinma on 5/19/2012 6:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
Tony, we all know you are a delusional isheep, but come on...

When android activations are nearing 1 million devices per day, how can you possibly fathom the notion that iOS sales are not dented by Android. Even if only half of that number were activating iPhones instead, iOS sales would be volumes larger. The success of iOS, and the numbers it is producing does not mean those numbers are not impacted by the equal success of android as a platform. The fact that you see that differently just is the concrete proof that you have only one side to take in any argument, whichever side Apple is on. You are truly a zealot to the nth degree. Your bias makes your comments worthless, so I am not sure why you post anything.

By negatony on 5/19/2012 7:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what you mean by that? My point remains that Apple's iOS sales have not been dented by Android.

Android isn't slowing iOS sales because you can't move any slower than a standstill. There would be no value in trying to halt the sales of a platform that poses no threat.

Revenue is not the definition of success, and Apple knows that. Those high profit margins count for nothing when two thirds of buyers think the platform is overpriced.

Now be a grown-up and start citing your claims.

By Tony Swash on 5/19/2012 8:28:13 PM , Rating: 1
Android isn't slowing iOS sales because you can't move any slower than a standstill.

You mean by standstill sales that are doubling annually?

Revenue is not the definition of success,

No but profit is. Android is all revenue and no profits. That leads nowhere.

By negatony on 5/20/2012 5:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
No but profit is. Android is all revenue and no profits. That leads nowhere.

I'm not comparing operating systems, dumbass. Google doesn't "sell" Android. They don't sell phones or tablets, either. They're not even involved in making the drivers for the hardware.

Google sells ads. Android is just a delivery platform for the ads. Apple sells ads too, but iAd can't even get a foothold in their own iOS, as most developers have opted to implement Google's AdMob instead. Google makes boatloads of money even if Android doesn't succeed, because they're the de facto standard for online advertising.

Oh, I get it, you only understand things when explained in terms of money. How about mentioning that Google currently trades at $600 per share, while Apple sits at $530. Quite impressive for a company that literally sells nothing but blank space.

By testerguy on 5/21/2012 7:29:14 AM , Rating: 1
Google sells ads. Android is just a delivery platform for the ads.

Actually from that perspective, Google epically failed. Google makes more money off iOS users than Android. Google has seen very little if any gain from Android, whereas Apple have seen billions upon billions of gain from iOS.

As for the respective share price of each company, that could not be more irrelevant. Firstly, even if they were representative of the value of a company as a whole, that wouldn't mean any of that was due to Android. Secondly, it ISN'T representative of the value of a company as a whole.

Google has 326m shares at $600 ($195 BN market cap).

Apple has 935m shares at $530 ($496 BN market cap).

Can you do some basic maths? :)

In other words, every Google share represents 3x more of the company than an Apple share, yet barely costs any more.

By ritualm on 5/20/2012 9:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
No but profit is. Android is all revenue and no profits. That leads nowhere.

Loss leaders are actually a time-tested revenue strategy. Retail, game console makers and supermarkets do it all the time.

Google makes and maintains Android at a net loss so it can drive up profits in its ad division and elsewhere. Profit is not necessarily the definition of success, kid.

Apple shares are as fairly priced as Facebook shares - grossly overpriced and in dire need of a severe market correction.

By Tony Swash on 5/21/2012 5:47:39 AM , Rating: 1
In the last reported quarter Apple made more profit $13.06 billion) than Google's entire revenue for the quarter ($9.72 billion).

In the last reported quarter Apple's revenues ($46.33 billion) were greater than Google's revenues for the entire preceding year ($37.91 billion).

All those figures are from data released by each company in their quarterly report.

Very roughly Apple is over four times as big and roughly twice as profitable as Google.

Googles makes about $600 million in total revenue (not profit) per year from Android, this includes all ad revenues. In the same period Google paid Apple about $1.4 billion to keep Google search on iOS.

Thus Google contributes around 3% to iPhone revenue, By comparison Android contributes about 5% to Google’s revenue.

Apple's Google business is bigger than Google's Android business.

Source for Google and Apple revenue contributions

By ritualm on 5/21/2012 8:57:18 AM , Rating: 2
Profit alone is not a measure of success, kid.

You didn't even read.

By Tony Swash on 5/21/2012 2:21:19 PM , Rating: 1
So let me get this right.

We are comparing the relative success/health of two operating system products, iOS and Android.

You think to make that comparison the following doesn't count or is not very important.

The relative health of the associated developer communities

And presumably the following metrics which iOS and Apple also lead in:
Consumer satisfaction (as measured in surveys etc).
Brand loyalty (as measured in surveys etc).

What does count in your view and why?

By ritualm on 5/21/2012 5:51:17 PM , Rating: 2

1. Meaningless - in some private clubs, an ordinary $100 cheap-as-dirt wine can be marked up 1000 times its actual cost, and people will buy it at that face value.

2. Meaningless unless you work in the investment business or an Apple shareholder - even then you never see a dime, much less a dividend, until you sell those Apple stocks.

3. Completely meaningless. Example: AMD actually posted a net profit in its last quarter if the one-time charge related to GlobalFoundries was excluded from its income statements.

In the case of Enron, losses were fudged and gussied up with creative (sleazy) accounting.
The relative health of the associated developer communities

I find the iOS hacking community healthier than that of the real thing. Look at Kinect. People came up with ways of using it for ways not explicitly endorsed by Microsoft. Unlike Apple, MS didn't ban them from continuing to hack it.

The researcher who discovered a big security breach somewhere in iOS and reported it to Apple? Perm-banned and his app development access revoked. Talk about treating the development community with respect! LOLZ!
Consumer satisfaction

More like brainwashed sheep, amirite? e.g. "It just works." / "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" / "How does this work? It's magic!"
Brand loyalty

By choice? The Mac ecosystem is an one-way street. Feel free to come in, but good luck and God bless you if you ever feel like getting out. That is not brand loyalty.

Unlike you, I can play both Apple fanboy AND Apple troll simultaneously. Take a hike.

By nolisi on 5/19/2012 2:26:11 PM , Rating: 5
Motorola sued Apple first... irrespective of these legal cases or any injunction, don't make any money in the handset business.

Apple really should stop copying Motorola and come up with it's own innovations.

One is that Android has failed to establish a healthy and robust business ecosystem that can can support a range of profitable OEMs

You fail to understand a dynamic that works in Apples favor. It is the OEM's job to integrate Android into their business and create a healthy and robust practice surrounding Android.

On the other hand, Apple excels when it comes to integration and marketing.

Trying to fault Android with OEM's failures is just shortsighted and shows your bias against Android. iOS would fail just as miserably if Apple didn't excel at integration and marketing. It also ignores the one manufacturer that has had significant and consistent success: Samsung.

The second is that Android has not dented Apple's growth in any significant fashion.

This is supposition and there's no way to substantiate this. Microsoft has not had a viable alternative in several years. Currently Android trounces iOS in smartphone marketshare:

Which is why Apple seeks injunctions against manufacturers- it wants that 61%.

This chart contradicts completely the idea that Android hasn't impeded iOS growth. The drop in Android adoption over the Q4 corresponds iOS's increase. And iOS's subsequent valley, corresponds with Androids peak in Q1 2012.

I don't deny that Apple is making money, or is good at integration. But right now Android owns the smartphone market and was able to do it in spite of Apples ability to integrate, market, + sue and with the perception of fragmentation hindering it

it would be better instead to try to understand why almost no one other than Samsung is making any money from Android

It's really easy to understand- Samsung and Apple excel in terms of integration and business model. Again, Samsung and Amazon prove that success in the Android ecosystem have more to do with excellent integration and marketing than with the OS itself.

By sprockkets on 5/19/2012 9:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
...unbelievably long posts on this story...

Dude, get a life.

By nolisi on 5/20/2012 12:05:14 AM , Rating: 2
no one, including Google, is making much money from the whole Android

Again, yet another claim you can't substantiate. Google's monetization of Android doesn't come from Android or supporting the platform for OEM's itself- this seems to be a point you just don't understand. Google's business model is to develop software and services which support its ad business. Its ad business has grown. Google's purpose in developing the Android platform aggressively isn't about selling it- it's about creating a platform to support ads.

OEMs are actually not central from Google's perspective as OEMs can come and go. If an OEM can figure out a model for market penetration that's better than others, great. This allows Android to be flexible and independent of a single model and still feed Google's central business as a platform provider- ads.

The only reason Apple is making the kind of money it does from iOS has nothing to do with the developers, hardware or software. It has to do with Apple's ability to market and own mind share in the market. This is how it commands a price premium. There's no diversity in this strategy and if Apple screws it up, it'll return to the state it was in when Jobs was released.

Apple has not made any attempt (so far) to go down market and sell a cheaper handset in order to chase market share

Wow- either complete BS or you just don't know what you're talking about. Do you even pay attention to Apple? Their version of going "down market" is to sell the iPhone 3. Visit Apples website once in a while.

but let's put this in context

other companies very, very wary about copying Apple's designs.

permanently block all competition in the market for all time

Supposition. He wanted to destroy Android, he said it. Apples actions demonstrate it through injunctions rather than licensing. Case closed. Over explaining dynamics does not shift supposition into proof.

I don't deny Apple's superior marketing, ability to profit or get people to pay inflated prices for products.

But to say that Android isn't a money maker or to suggest it isn't a success when it's owning 61% of the market is ludicrous and flat out denial. If Apple truly has the better overall product, it wouldn't be staring upwards at Android adoption rates. Apple only has a product that's more expensive and more polished in the minds of a certain portion of the market.

The only thing that is truly accurate to say is: "Android isn't making as much as Apple has convinced people to spend on iOS devices."

By ritualm on 5/20/2012 9:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sarah Palin's Bridge to Nowhere, Tony Swash version

Google makes Android so it can increase its customer base for its ad sales. Google Maps, Google Search, Google+, and every service it runs are aimed to do one thing: drive up revenue from ads. You're correct that Android isn't making any money, but you're wrong in arguing that lack of profits = Android is a business failure.

Profit is not necessarily the only success factor that truly matters, kid. What would you like your tombstone to say?

By robinthakur on 5/21/2012 6:01:13 AM , Rating: 1
I think it a bit disingenuous to overlook the fact that Apple does cream off 70% of the profits in the global mobile market. That is a huge number and it signifies that a) Android oem's are hardly making any money, hence their cliff edge status and b) that Apple are pricing it's devices correctly if they are only just meeting customer demand. Should they really be trying to grow their market downward by putting out a cheaper version of the more up to date iPhones (I know the 3GS is free) knowing that the sort of people who buy them are not really the type who are going to spend on apps or music? The fact that Android, in cornering the lower end of the market is not really reaping much financial reward is quite sobering. In point of fact, the majority of mobile ad revenue which google sees comes from iOS devices because the people that own them use them more for mobile data, probably because they can afford to. This, and the crazy fragmentation is why developers still overwhelmingly choose to develop for iOS, and I can't see that changing unless android becomes just Samsung devices which would ironically be quite good for the platform from a development standpoint.

RE: Somewhere... out there... Tony is smiling happily
By Pirks on 5/21/2012 12:46:49 PM , Rating: 1
If crapdroid becomes all samsung all crapdroid fanboys could be then pwned by one easy question: wtf did google purchase motorola for? :)))

By ritualm on 5/21/2012 5:58:52 PM , Rating: 2

Google can shut down Motorola Mobility overnight and only Moto fanboys will whine about its demise.

WTF? Did I just read that right?
By 1ceTr0n on 5/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: WTF? Did I just read that right?
By Pirks on 5/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: WTF? Did I just read that right?
By 1ceTr0n on 5/18/2012 7:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
Being able to patent the ability to type in a schedule/meeting is more stupid then the actual fact that companies are able to state they "invented it" and charge for others to use it.

Same stupidity that fueled Donald Trumps desire to trademark "Your fired" You can't fucking patent a verbalized analogy means of communication from biological creatures, so why should the ability to right down times and notes be any different, wether it be via pencil on paper or on a program

I hate my country at times....

RE: WTF? Did I just read that right?
By bupkus on 5/19/12, Rating: 0
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki