Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Most Profitable Mobile Operating System: Android
puddingebola writes "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has a piece of commentary discussing Microsoft's profit from their patent claims on Android. From the article, 'To some, Windows 8 is a marketplace failure. But its flop has been nothing compared to Microsoft's problems in getting anyone to use its Windows Phone operating systems. You don't need to worry about Microsoft's bottom line though. Thanks to its Android patent agreements, Microsoft may be making as much as $8 per Android device. This could give Microsoft as much as $3.4 billion in 2013 from Android sales.'"
So after all... Microsoft is making money on Linux.
Why not?
If you're going to make a claim like that, you should at least say why. If they're valid, legitimate patents then I see no reason why the company shouldn't make money off them. That's how the system works.
If Microsoft had pushed out the OS a couple of years earlier the mobile phone market would likely be a very different place.
Yep, and if my grandma had wheels she'd be a WAGON.
In the current patent regime, it is far more likely that the patents involved are total bullsh*t. It's Microsoft that has to justify itself here. Of course it will never do that because the entire Android community could then try to code around this kind of larceny and extortion.
Although some things boil down to "being compatible".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The main ones are long filenames in FAT, ex-FAT for > 32GB SD cards, and ActiveSync.
There are alternatives for all of these, but in the case of Activesync alternatives, they are not as good, and in the case of FAT, it means getting the same filesystem drivers onto other computers and devices.
All Google needs to do is offer a commercial licence, for a small fee, to all Android OEM's that indemnifies them. This way if Microsoft has an issue with Android or Linux they can take on Google directly. But, we all know that would never happen because Microsoft clearly knows that Google would single handily invalidate all of their obvious, worthless and prior art ridden patents one by one.
From the Constitution: "...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their..." The patents are from the Jurassic age, in software years.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
this isn't how the system is designed or intended, this is how the system has been perverted.
making money off products you do not have any involvement in via patent extortion is a sign of a broken system and this is already reaching antitrust investigations.
So if Windows Phone were shutdown.
There would be no barrier to native Office for Android, or Office for Apple iOS devices. [Just like the old days, competing with Wordstar and Lotus or Borland]
Even better they could shift the developers for Windows Phone over to developing Mobile versions of all their Apps and tools to Android and iOS versions.
They should "own" the Mobile App market on Android and iOS, and stop loosing money on Windows Phone.
The current mindset of tossing good money after bad.. is just plain stupidity and stubborness.. its a culture of "we can't be wrong".
any good reason not to use UDF for large flash cards? it has read and write support in linux, mac and windows. I use it for USB sticks.
But Microsoft are justifying themselves. They are going to court where companies justify themselves. IANAL but if I read the news correctly they are currently crashing Motorola in each and every court they sue each other. Of course none of the cases is over yet but the "justification" has certainly began.
Because this is not how patent settlements work. Patent settlements do not list patents they license the entire portfolio related to the product. This means that if tomorrow MS invents something and Google puts it in Android Samsung will be able to use it because they are paying for it even though it is not invented yet. Actual patents are only shown in court and they are certainly showing some patents when suing Motorola. The Motorola case will certainly prove if MS has relevant patents as the legal system defines them although I am sure /. people will invent a "rounded corners" meme and claim that the judge is corrupted or something.
ActiveSync works. With Exchange. It just works. But it is easily replaced by going to GMAIL and GCalendars. ActiveSync is what killed BlackBerry servers, as it does most everything most people want or need. Not everything, but good enough.
Trust me when I say this, nothing else comes close to Exchange for total functionality. Problem is, it is Microsoft, and horribly expensive. Someone making a ground up replacement to Exchange would make a killing, especially if they give it away for free (j/k).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
any good reason not to use UDF for large flash cards? it has read and write support in linux, mac and windows. I use it for USB sticks.
This is why I read slashdot.
Apparently it had passed me by that UDF is for anything other than DVDs (I know technically you can have any FS on any block device on Linux). I am actually going to try this on my next USB stick.
Thanks!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
ActiveSync is for receiving email from Exchange or other compatible email servers and syncronising calendar, contact etc items. The alternatives are things like IMAP IDLE, but they generally use more data bandwidth and more battery power than ActiveSync.
Microsoft won't justify themselves, they just have to threaten to take away the Windows licence form that company and thats probably why they won;t go after Google.
In a relatively short period of time, that may be irrelevant... Windows Phone isn't selling for shit, and even Microsoft knows it. That leaves threats and patent pseudo-trolling as their only real income option in the mobile space.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
But it is easily replaced by going to GMAIL and GCalendars.
Kinda' true, but no business of any reasonable size is going to use Google for email and calendaring. Google also doesn't do tasks, notes, etc.
And, FYI, Outlook/Exchange isn't all that expensive. I pay for subscriptions to a service for it, and it's reasonable.
I don't respond to AC's.
Courts of law are not the only judge of what's bullsh*t. Since it's pretty clear the current court system is flawed, allowing massive abuse of the patent system, I think it's fair to ask Microsoft to justify itself to the large audience, and explain what value it's adding. This way we can make a determination whether or not it's acting like a parasite.
Funny you say that. I have a Windows Phone. Several people I know have Windows Phones. We all like 'em quite a bit. Bought 'em at a local Verizon store. Much better than the alternatives.
Why all the FUD?
I don't respond to AC's.
Yeah?
coverage: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/feds-may-use-subpoena-powers-to-study-patent-trolls/
explanation: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2013041110212889
give it a few months. The wheels are turning, slowly but surely.
Motorola sued Microsoft over H.264 related patents in Germany and demanded a ban on Xbox and Windows :) Microsoft countersuit may potentially lead to the ban of Google Maps in Germany. We're far from safe from all this bullshit.
You have a few options that try to emulate it(or at least its feature set) but really they don't have it yet.
What exactly *is* its "feature set" that you claim is unique to ActiveSync? It still makes little sense to me, the problem of synchronizing two sets of data in disparate locations is pevasive and well-researched: multi-master RDBMS replication, rsync, Unison, distributed VCS (Darcs, Git. Mercurial), collaborative text editors, directory services synchronization... I'm being serious, this is actually an area I'm interested in and I'd like to know why mobile data synchronization, of all data synchronization protocols, is so ill-serviced. There doesn't seem to be any objective reason for that to be the case.
Ezekiel 23:20
What are they waiting for?
A list of exactly what is being violated?
To put it in perspective, consider the SCO-Linux lawsuits. While this isn't exactly the same, it is the same sort of hurdle.
Company A: Your stuff violates some of our stuff! Pay us or else! ...
Company B: What stuff?
Company A: A lot of stuff! 68 things enumerated over thousands of places to be precise. Now pay us or else!
Company B: Um, what stuff is it exactly?
Company A: Oh, you'll find out in court. Consider yourself served!
And for those that agree (settle out of court), it seems common for a "deal" to be offered, with one of the rules being that they don't divulge that information.
Maybe that's not the case here, but I'm betting that's at least part of it (the other part being bogus or weak patents). There may even be a couple valid ones, but as far as I know, that hasn't been fully identified.
There is a task switcher (hold down the back button and a list pops up with thumbnails from your open app). Also, with WP8, any app can run in the background as long as it conforms to certain rules about resource utilization. Not many apps use the feature yet, but the key ones like Skype do, where you want the app to do something even if the app is running in the background.
Why are manufacturers paying this extortion rather than banding together and trying to fight it like any other patent troll?
What is Google's position on this and why aren't they indemnifying manufacturers that use Android or fighting this themselves?
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - none of those elements are present in the above post. It's simply an account that that differs from your personal experience. It may or may not be true, but it's not FUD.
Well, to be fair its actually just bullshit that differs from reality, posted with the intent of creating FUD.
Every sentence in the GP was factually incorrect. The ones that were opinion based are clearly lies (like them not being available -- every single Verizon and ATT store in the US carries them, every authorized reseller will also have them available). I suspect the "I actually wanted to develop for it" was a lie, too... given that they're so easy to find and the dev tools are free for it.
That is, until Microsoft asserts patent ownership on the stuff in your free software.
I believe several times they've claimed that Linux violates a number of unspecified patents they hold, but I don't believe they've ever been willing to disclose what they are.
One does have to wonder what these patents are, if the patents would survive scrutiny, or if the technology was actually invented by someone else before Microsoft patented it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Or, maybe being a writer for ZDNet he writes things which are frequently of interest to us?
Three whole times in 2013 so far, wow, there must be some kind of conspiracy.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
There's no such thing as a legitimate software patent.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I have no personal experience here, but this UDF compatibility matrix does not look too promising. Apparently there are five UDF versions and three variants within each version, and only the oldest versions (from 1996-1997) actually have wide OS support.
A bit more googling produces more comments from users about tricky incompatibilities.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
If they were talking about eliminating the loops, that would be one thing. But they are basically wanting to keep the loops for those who obey the law (typically the more productive and people who you want immigrating) and short-circuit them for law breakers (people who are more likely to be a drain on the welfare state).
Simple answer: The people who make the SD standard come up with a non-FAT filesystem for use on it. Devices can then implement either or both depending on their needs. Many devices will implement both and FAT will eventually go away. This would also allow some new things of which FAT is simply incapable. Why hasn't this been done already? I'm sure the FAT patent doesn't have much life left in it but neither does FAT.
The point of the GNU phone would of course be that it doesn't do that... and that the UI is based on Emacs.
I knew a guy that bought an AMC Pacer. He loved it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1975_AMC_Pacer_base_model_frontleftside.jpg
Ironically, it's Google that's facing antitrust issues by abusing FRAND standard patents for extortion on basic things like H.264 and WiFi.
Meanwhile Microsoft and Apple have made a public and binding declaration that they won't use FRAND patents for injunctions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/eu-rules-against-googles-motorola-mobility-unit-over-patent-claim/2013/05/06/00be129c-b666-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html
This space for rent.
Problem is, it is Microsoft, and horribly expensive.
Exchange costs about $60-70 per user for a CAL. Even if you're constantly upgrading to the latest version of Exchange, that's a hair over $20 a year. You and I have different definitions of "horribly expensive." Compared to the cost of a full time employee, $20 is noise.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Kinda' true, but no business of any reasonable size is going to use Google for email and calendaring.
Urm, like KLM? (11k+ users...)
http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/business/customers.html
Not a Google shill, btw, (I use both G and Outlook, and agree G are not *quite* there yet).
But they're getting closer...
this isn't how the system is designed or intended, this is how the system has been perverted.
making money off products you do not have any involvement in via patent extortion is a sign of a broken system and this is already reaching antitrust investigations.
Well I agree that the system is broken in various ways, but the point of the patent system is to make money off things that you aren't involved in. To allow & encourage people to publish their inventions in return for a cut whenever someone uses that invention. It is supposed to encourage invention, by allowing a monopoly to the first person to do something. They are not supposed to have to make a working product, just to publish their idea so that someone else might.
Now whether that's a good idea anymore is another discussion, but what you describe is what patents are designed to do.
The only one named but not confirmed is about FAT, something easily avoided by using Ext3 or 4.
Well, until Joe Sixpack wants to pack his micro-SD card with stuff from his Windows laptop...
Just to be clear: FAT is not patented. Anyone can use it, for any purpose, with no license. The patent is for Extended FAT.
Joe's laptop is most likely using NTFS, so he will be copying to a different filesystem regardless of whether it is exFAT or Ext3. A bigger problem is things like cameras which have FAT built into their firmware, but most of these stick to basic 8+3 FAT.
I've worked for/with a couple of small businesses that switched to MS's hosted plan for exchange + office licenses, and couldn't be happier... Difference between MS and google there, is that they actually, and easily got a live person to talk to the one time one of them was having issues. That, and imho Google killing of the CalDav access to calendar was a big bad.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Nokia reported their Q1 2013 results, which were very much, for their smartphone business at least, in line with expectations, with 5.6 million Lumia handsets being shipped, most of these WP8 devices.
Shipped != sold unless there is high demand. For example the Wii when first launched was sold out everywhere so shipped == sold. For WP8 phones, I don't see that kind of demand.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, but you CAN blame them for taking advantage of the legal system as it stands. If the 1% manages to pass a bill tomorrow that makes it legal to shoot anybody who has less the $10K in assets that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make the people who follow the law moral.
A guy I work with got one too. It was very nice looking, and the interface seemed pretty slick.
A couple of us were standing by his desk chatting and watched as his phone, sitting on his desk, lit up and started to call his wife without any user interaction. He had so many problems with it, he traded it in for an iPhone.
I've seen a few in the wild, like people using them in restaurants and bars, but he was the only person I've known that had one.
Bill Gates father is a prominent property rights attorney who's advised Bill on structuring MS business practices since day 1.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Of course, the AMC Pacer didn't get consistently good reviews like Windows Phone 8. But, why should anybody let something little like "facts" get in the way, right?
I don't respond to AC's.
If Microsoft had pushed out the OS a couple of years earlier the mobile phone market would likely be a very different place.
Microsoft had a more capable mobile OS in 2001 than they have now with WP8. The hardware has finally reached a point where Windows Mobile could shine but they gave up and bought Danger and trotted out the Kin which they spent over 2 years developing but gave up on in less than 6 mo. They were so desperate to get Windows Phone out the door they left crucial features and backward compatibility out completely. Microsoft is all about bailing the water out of the boat instead of patching the leak.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
For ex-FAT there's an acceptable solution: reformat the card with FAT32 and it will work on both Linux and Windows. Microsoft tools just refuse to format >= 32GB but the FS drivers accept the structure.
They intentionally hide infringing patents behind NDA, walking from vendor to vendor and shaking up money from. In normal, non-corrupt system this should qualify as racketeering and should be prosecuted as such. Unfortunately, in dysfunctional US legal there is nothing big corporation could be successfully prosecuted and properly fined. If you look at such fiascos as HSBC drug cartels money laundering operation (those fucks created dedicated organization for this purpose and essentially walked out scott free!), Microsoft's patent racket looks like small potatoes in comparison.
Why should the life of the author even be part of the copyright term at all? Why should copyright in a work whose author lives for another 70 years last longer than copyright in a work published the same day whose author dies the next day?
The patented implementation of long file names in FAT is the only implementation that Windows understands. Therefore, licensing is required for interoperability unless you want to, say, store all files in a zip file and store the zip file with a short file name.
Joe's laptop is most likely using NTFS, so he will be copying to a different filesystem regardless of whether it is exFAT or Ext3.
The difference is that the driver for exFAT comes with Windows and the driver for Ext3 does not. One would have to gain Internet access, download the Ext3 driver, and convince a member of the Administrators group to run its installer.
I'd suggest Ext2 as a far better alternative. Have one small partition with Ext2Fsd or other software for Windows users, and every other popular platform will be able to just natively mount it. If it caught on, Microsoft would look positively user-UN-friendly, and would soon recant and include native Ext2 support, probably copied from FreeBSD like they've done in the past...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Software isn't maths, software is a machine! Saying software is maths is saying that everything that exists is in some form applied maths, which is true, but utterly unhelpful.