

Google's Latest Acquisition: The perils of licensing to your competitors - raganesh
http://www.asymco.com/2011/08/15/the-perils-of-licensing-to-your-competitors/

======
ZeroGravitas
Is it only me that think's this guy's a nutter that gets by by saying whatever
Apple fans want to hear? Here's some of his startlingly wrong predictions
about the smartphone market from last year:

[http://www.asymco.com/2010/11/03/what-do-you-have-to-
believe...](http://www.asymco.com/2010/11/03/what-do-you-have-to-believe-for-
an-android-dominated-future/)

His key arguments where that:

* Android wouldn't grow faster than the average of RIM, Nokia, HP and Apple.

* Nokia wouldn't dump Symbian&Meego for someone else's OS.

* Android wouldn't do a great deal better than Windows Mobile

* Android vendors wouldn't be profitable

So not very good really, in fact a total blowout. Maybe he knows stuff about
Apple, to be honest I think he's just like a sports fan during a season when
his team is playing well. His elaborate theories of why they are succeeding
don't seem to mesh with reality much, except in that Apple is doing very well,
and I'm not sure he cares if they do or not.

~~~
benologist
It's just one of many, many websites that makes their money by pandering to a
niche.

It's tasteless, but profitable.

~~~
cooldeal
>It's tasteless, but profitable.

The problem is that they are bandied about as independent opinion and
analysis.

Gruber sells ads on his RSS feeds, which seem to cost thousands of dollars
each, thanks to advertising by iOS apps. No wonder he plays to his fanbase
with the pro-Apple and anti-Google/Android/MS rhetoric. He must be laughing
all the way to the bank while thinking up his next 'The precisely perfect
placement of the Chair at Macworld' and 'Dirty Percent' article. Also, he gets
invited to Apple events, which may quickly disappear if he gets too
critical(see Gizmodo).

~~~
ugh
Just because people don’t share your opinion doesn’t mean that they are
purposefully lying. It’s a quite common fallacy, really.

~~~
cooldeal
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it!" -Sinclair

Regardless of the above quote, I do not accuse them of lying. But there's a
strong elementy of hypocrisy and fanboyism, both in supporting Apple almost
all the time, and screaming bloody murder and abject criticism of any moves by
Apple's competitors.

Do you seriously think analysis by Asymco, Gruber and Marco regarding Apple
are the flawless gospel truth?

The fallacy you mention would apply more to the accusations of commenters
being paid MS shills, which happens all the time here on HN too.

~~~
ugh
_Do you seriously think analysis by Asymco, Gruber and Marco regarding Apple
are the flawless gospel truth?_

Why would I have to believe that in order to respect their opinions? I’m not
going to sink to the level and just attack them without actually engaging with
their arguments. They are coherent and they have arguments, they deserve a
response and not just blind attacks.

I’m not sure what any accusations (So, when did that happen?) have to do with
that.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>They are coherent and they have arguments, they deserve a response and not
just blind attacks.

The OP is a good example of this. Asymco's wrong many times and whenever it's
wrong it's seems to have erred on the side of Apple. Still, the headlines draw
interest and page views. What does that tell you?

For example, lets take this post.
[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/15/apple-samsung-
im...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/15/apple-samsung-images)

If it was Google or MS instead of Apple there, Gruber would be screaming
bloody murder about wilful manipulation of the law to further their ends and
harm Apple's ascendancy. Am I wrong?

Since it is Apple, it is just 'one image' and 'sloppy lawyering'. Very
predictable even before you read it. This is the opinion that we are all
supposed to respect?

It's called spin, or a very biased opinion that needs to be taken with a spoon
of salt. It's as close to Apple PR as you can get, aimed at a very specific
audience.

~~~
ugh
Gruber generally never screams bloody murder. You also should never read him
expecting an unbiased opinion of Google. That’s not the value proposition and
it never was.

It’s very weird what you expect of Gruber. It just doesn’t make any sense.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>It’s very weird what you expect of Gruber. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Just a little more honesty and less hypocrisy would certainly help. As the OP
said, those sites are more like sports team fanboy sites or political
mouthpieces tailored to the audience/readers.

To go off on a funny tangent:

Well, maybe I just don't get it unless I am in the RDF myself.
[http://www.tuaw.com/2011/05/17/bbc-loving-apple-looks-
like-a...](http://www.tuaw.com/2011/05/17/bbc-loving-apple-looks-like-a-
religion-to-an-mri-scan/)

That is why maybe all those sites feels weird to me but seem perfectly fine to
many others!

~~~
ugh
Yeah, those crazy lunatics! Let’s smile smugly and ignore their incoherent
rambling!

------
joezydeco
_"Symbian was formed to be governed in a way very similar to the original
Android via the Open Handset Alliance."_

Riiiiight. I was at an OHA company during the early Android days post-Google.
OHA was created by Google to make their subcontractors _look_ like "partners"
in Android development. There was no boss other than Google in this project.

------
hollerith
Google could shut down Motorola Mobility's hardware business, keeping its
patents.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Are you serious?

~~~
hollerith
Yes: it would alleviate the concerns of other other Android licensees, who
currently own about 45% of the smartphone market.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Sounds very unlikely. If it was that they would've have announced it by now.
Or the headline would be 'Google gets joint licensing(and right to sue) for
Motorola patents for $6 billion'.

~~~
hollerith
I think the way the courts work is that only the patent owner can sue for
infringement.

And recent events tend to show that Moto Mobility would not have been able to
continue to sell smartphones if they had sold their patents to Google.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>I think the way the courts work is that only the patent owner can sue for
infringement.

I am not sure about that, companies like Intellectual Ventures/Lodsys do all
kinds of manipulations.

>And recent events tend to show that Moto Mobility would not have been able to
continue to sell smartphones if they had sold their patents to Google.

That wouldn't work like that. Google would (need to) provide patent
indemnification to Android licensees like Microsoft does with their desktop
Windows and mobile WP7.

------
jfoutz
So, Verizon needs to hire some coders and get cracking? It took Apple and
Google _years_ to produce a good modern phone OS. Palm took a shot at their
own os, and as near as i can tell, they're gone now.

Phone manufacturers made their choice a decade ago. They picked closed,
complex, developer hostile platforms. Now, it seems, that was a mistake. Phone
manufacturers get to fund Apple, Google, or Microsoft's, move into their
markets.

------
Jabbles
I think two of Google's major aims will be to improve competition among
Android manufacturers and use the experience gained from building its own
phones to improve Android for all of them.

That's not to say that Google won't make much money off the physical device,
but I think Google's aim is to increase revenue from Android (ultimately
adverts) by making the platform better.

------
Herring
Unimportant. The patent problem needs to be solved Right Now, and it's worth
risking a long term complication.

------
sudonim
"The supplier is also a competitor"

Wasn't there an article recently about how Samsung supplies a large chunk of
the components in the iPhone? It's a different department but isn't it the
same dilemma?

