

Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others join forces to bring down Android  - cryptoz
http://www.dailytech.com/Can+Microsoft+and+Apple+Kill+Googles+Android+with+Lawsuits/article22114.htm

======
rauljara
Gripe about 95%+ of the articles that mention Apple, Android and rim: They all
talk about winning, like if apple/android/rim don't do x, apple/android/rim
will "win". This article makes the case that Android has already won.

When I play a game, and someone wins, everyone stops playing. There is a
winner. No point in playing. That is not what is happening here. Apple,
Android, and even Rim all have profits that are growing. No one has lost.

Rim might be in trouble, in that their growth looks like it isn't sustainable,
and their product appears to be falling behind. But even if rim is eventually
going to "lose", it is a long way off. To talk about android or apple
"winning" at this point is absurd. Both sides are making far too much money to
even begin considering giving up.

~~~
rorrr
Both RIM and AAPL profits are going down for the first time in many years:

[http://www.google.com/finance?q=TSE:RIM&fstype=ii](http://www.google.com/finance?q=TSE:RIM&fstype=ii)

[http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii](http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii)

~~~
podperson
AAPL's profits go down after the Christmas peak _every_ year. (I wouldn't be
surprised if RIM's do too. RIM's problem has been that it has continued
growing and getting more money despite falling deeper into a huge technical
quagmire. The former allowed it to ignore the latter.)

I'd rather have Apple's graph than Google's:

[http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GOOG&fstype=ii](http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GOOG&fstype=ii)

(Not saying Google is in any trouble either, but flat after not much
growth...)

------
wmat
If anything, I hope this kind of litigation forces the US government to
overhaul the patent system.

Also, what if Google simply Open Sourced the small amount of Android that
isn't already Open Source? The Linux community would surely embrace it,
integrate the bits not in the mainline kernel that should be, and move
forward.

~~~
raganwald
_what if Google simply Open Sourced the small amount of Android that isn't
already Open Source? The Linux community would surely embrace it, integrate
the bits not in the mainline kernel that should be, and move forward._

This only changes things if manufacturers start making 'empty' phones and
require users to download and install their own free operating system.

Furthermore, many of the patents cover the phones themselves and not just the
software. So even if some version of Android was 100% patent unencumbered, the
phone manufacturers would still find themselves in "negotiations" with the
patent cartel.

~~~
azakai
> This only changes things if manufacturers start making 'empty' phones and
> require users to download and install their own free operating system.

Actually this is a very good idea. Phones could be sold with just a tiny
'installer' that downloads the OS directly from Google.

The first benefit would be that there is no software to sue the phone makers
about. Microsoft, RIM and Apple would have to sue Google itself.

The second benefit would be that the phone uses stock Android, not modified
with crapware.

~~~
seabee
Stock Android is also not modified with any handset-specific features that
genuinely add value.

------
Tyrannosaurs
Part of the article seems to be predicated on the idea that Google only bid
$900m for the Nortel portfolio. What happened to the stories about bidding
assorted mathematical constants up to $3.1415926bn?

~~~
GHFigs
They were ignored by people who can't fit that into their narrative.

------
rimantas

      > as Google was beat by a shadowy bidder
      > calling itself "Rockstar Bidco".
    

Rockstar Bidco was competing against "Ranger". Can I now call "Ranger" (Google
+ Intel) shadowy too?

------
jsherry
Coke and Pepsi are competitors, but they're quietly pleased with their
duopoly. Apple and Android should just squash the other guys and then worry
about fighting over their 50/50 market share later.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Generally speaking, one brand of cola can serve as a drop-in replacement for
another (notwithstanding vendor contracts and so on). Coke and Pepsi products
aren't particularly subject to positive network externalities - it's not as if
you can only mix a given brand of rum with Coke and not Pepsi.

~~~
Gustomaximus
Some years back Coke took many bars to court that were serving Pepsi with rum
as most customers said they want a "rum and coke" even if they didn't care it
was Pepsi as the mixer. Coke argued (and won) on the customers behalf that
they should be given what they asked for.

Afterwards some pubs put signs up saying "we only serve Pepsi" which covered
them but most just started serving Coke coke.

------
tomlin
This is par for the course for RIM, Microsoft, so no surprises. I get the
sense lately that Apple is unraveling. They're starting to make decisions
based on fear, not evolution.

~~~
podperson
Yes, it's sad to watch Apple thrash around, hastily releasing half-assed new
versions of Mac OS X and iOS while its competitors produce superior, polished
products at their own pace.

(That was sarcasm and ridicule, in case it wasn't clear.)

I'd say the fact that Apple is simultaneously releasing the best stuff in all
the categories it competes in, making huge profits, increasing or maintaining
market share, and aggressively suing the heck out of everyone, while not
having anything approaching a monopoly in any market except perhaps audio
downloads is a pretty good sign (for Apple).

~~~
tomlin
I think you took it too far, perhaps in completely other directions.

Apple's products are brilliant, innovative and fun to use. iOS is a great
ecosystem for developers and users alike. Apple continues to make incredible
gains in profits and pleasing it's customers.

(That was me agreeing with you, despite the fact that these points have
nothing to do with what we're discussing, in case it wasn't clear.)

Dissension of Apple is valid in this case. Apple has a history of doing things
_different_. Innovative. Progressive, even. The approach they are taking is
none of those. We expect better.

~~~
podperson
Companies design water pistols and patent the designs. Apple spends millions
rethinking the design of the laptop and is promptly imitated (badly) by every
other company in the business and gets no benefit.

I think that innovators feel they are entitled to protect their ideas from
thieves. (Just as Nokia probably feels about all the GSM innovation it has
done that Google and Apple take for granted.) Sometimes the law backs Apple
up, sometimes not. But I don't think it's "panic" so much as an emotional,
visceral response (insofar as corporations are capable of such) to doing
brilliant work and having it simply copied or stolen.

~~~
tomlin
I can appreciate that point of view. Evolution of technology, to me, as a
consumer, is much more important.

Apple is one of few companies that are _worth_ copying. I feel that we all
benefit in the long term when manufacturers of technology must one-up each
other, especially if in order to compete they are forced to raise the bar. You
can kinda think of Apple as an incubator of evolutionary technology and
design, if you will.

Google is probably Apple's only real competitor when we talk about quality and
design. Others may _try_ to copy Apple's designs or technology but I've yet to
see the same quality.

Look at the iPhone, for example. Multitasking done right. Folders done right.
While other manufacturers were adding these features immediately and doing
things status quo, Apple had real-world examples of what to avoid and made
those features better while highlighting why they were better.

I think getting involved with these lawsuits serve only as a distraction to
their core philosophies. I'm concerned that Apple's shareholders will start
seeing these lawsuits as personal victories and demand they are carried out as
they see fit.

------
mattgreenrocks
How is this not unethical?

------
funkah
I believe Apple's plan is to bring down Android by making their devices better
than Android devices. Kinda crazy, I know.

~~~
speckledjim
One of the big wins with android, is that you can choose from literally 100s
of phones. From loads of different manufacturers. You can get a basic pink
square phone, or a massive phone with HD display.

That's never going to happen at Apple. The iPhone fills a certain need, but
it's only 1 phone.

~~~
bphogan
Why is that a win? I just don't see it. It sounds great for geeks like us, but
this is the same fragmentation we find in the PC market, where brand x thing
doesn't work with brand y thing. I bought a Samsung phone last year, and 4
months later they decided I'd get no more firmware. My friends can all run
Google Music on their phones. I have to wait because I chose "the wrong
phone."

Apple's one device works well for non techies... in fact out of the non-geeks
I know, it's about split between Android and iOS devices - the folks with iOS
say they have an iPhone. The others say they have a Samsung or an EVO.

I think the "one device" works pretty well.

------
gcb
anyone remembers nokia?

what killed them? patent fights, or crappy software?

~~~
rospaya
Let's bury Nokia when they are no longer the biggest mobile phone vendor in
the world.

~~~
tygorius
Well, the context was smartphones. And "biggest" isn't necessarily a sign of
health, as quite a few Finnish software developers recently found out.

Given the huge lead that Nokia had in smartphone tech and their current
trendline in the smartphone market, I don't think it's premature to at least
reserve a burial plot.

~~~
sek
General Motors comes to mind.

