Slashdot Mirror
Google CEO Larry Page Talks Apple, Android, Google+
Nerval's Lobster writes "Fortune magazine managed to score an exclusive interview with Google CEO Larry Page. While he doesn't reveal a whole lot about the company's future plans—CEOs are great at offering fuzzy generalities, if nothing else—he manages to reveal just a bit about the ongoing competition with Apple, the evolution of search, and monetizing mobile devices. Google's rivalry with Apple has descended into massive lawsuits, but Page doesn't exactly channel Genghis Khan when it comes to his own feelings on the issue. 'I think it would be nice if everybody would get along better and the users didn't suffer as a result of other people's activities,' he told the magazine. 'We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy. I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not.'"
"Larry Page Talks Apple, Android, Google+"?
Gorbachev Sings Tractors: Turnip! Buttocks!
--
BMO
Currently Google is pre-selected as the search engine for iOS devices. We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly - they are an advertising company. Google ironically makes more money from iOS due to the higher usage of iOS devices around the world (and, in turn, more ad impressions).
Something as simple as having the user select their search engine of choice during device setup, and having the list alphabetical (Bing, Google, Yahoo) would cause a significant revenue decline.
If these behind-the-scenes talks with Apple and Google get worse, this will be the big sign.
Google is rich and powerful. If they were seriously interested in changing patent and copyright laws that stifle innovation, they would put their where their mouth is and lobby for real change. Instead they talk it when it suits them, but they know those some laws can be used to protect their profits. Ergo hypocrisy and no real change.
Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.
The two are not mutually exclusive. And, actually, its not a business model; it may be either a philosophy, or the core principal of a business model, or both, but its not, in and of itself, a business model, any more than "collect underpants", by itself, is.
So if Google stood up and said "we're not playing the patent game anymore", and got rid of all of their patents, what do you think would happen? Until the system changes, it would be kind of stupid to just sit back and get destroyed by everyone else's patent litigation. Participation doesn't mean that their primary goal isn't changing the system.
It's not a philosophy at all to Google. It's a business model. Let's call a spade a spade.
It can be both. People don't cease to be passionate about things when they become employed.
Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.
You need to look at this from the cold war perspective. Neither the US nor the USSR wanted nuclear war, but it would be utterly stupid for either of them to just get rid of their nuclear weapons.
You have to make an agreement where everyone involved weakens their arsenals simultaneously. Until that happens, you must work to increase your arsenal to higher levels than your opponents, or risk being destroyed.
By not entering into cross-licensing agreements, Apple is essentially behaving like North Korea, as if they don't understand the concept of MAD, and just getting all the other nuclear powers angry.
So if Google stood up and said "we're not playing the patent game anymore", and got rid of all of their patents, what do you think would happen? Until the system changes, it would be kind of stupid to just sit back and get destroyed by everyone else's patent litigation. Participation doesn't mean that their primary goal isn't changing the system.
Most believed Google would be using the Motorola patents defensively. Instead they are using the Motorola Mobility patent portfolio to ban everything from smartphones, to tablets, to the Xbox 360.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112740990/motorola-microsoft-xbox-lawsuit-120312/
I got one of the chromebooks google shipped out for testing. I love it a lot more than I thought I would. It is the laptop I read sites/chat/watch youtube on before sleep. Very light, very quiet and it doesn't generate a lot of heat.
Some people believe that they are trying to get the whole patent system changed by making it unprofitable for anyone else. The more players lobbying to change it,t he better.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
How do you use a patent "defensively"? It's like a gun: virtually useless in stopping other bullets, but it can protect you in a firefight by forcing your opponent to worry about not exposing himself to your bullets, and thus adopting a less efficient offensive behaviour. Of course, if your opponent knows you're not going to shoot back, then your gun is entirely useless in aiding your survival. And Microsoft has picked on lots of Android vendors for the last two years with litigation (is it HTC that ended up having to pay them a fee for every device sold?), so I don't see your point.
That's the best link you have? One regarding the result of a case that had been pending since before Google bought Motorola? That sure doesn't lend a lot of credence to your claims.
What specific products has Motorola (post-buyout) tried to take off the shelves?
Seriously, try a little harder, bonch. This is just pathetic.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal