Slashdot is famous for not understanding patents and often shouts "the sky is falling." My commentary was just to provide facts and a bit more understanding of how things really work.
I don't know about the "my knowledge is above all" attitude.
I'm not going to disagree with your conclusion. But your first paragraph is off on several counts. First off, H264 is already a published standard.
That's right.
Doesn't matter if new material is incorporated into it. The old stuff still hits public domain the same time it always was. Now maybe if there is an H264v2 and everyone switches to that, you might have patents to deal with. And only on the differences.
That was my point! It doesn't matter how you label it (H264v2, H264 extended, H264-drm, H264+, take a pick). For example, if H264 becomes standard for all video, by 2016 you can be reasonably certain there will be some sort of DRM and other "features" tacked on to it. The problem is - today's implementation will not be sufficient to decode and "play" the content that will become "standard" in 2016.
There are more than one ways to do this - one of them it's not inconceivable that MPEG-LA, Apple, Nokia, YouTube, etc. will have cross-licensing agreements and will be pushing the standard forward together, making sure the format stays locked up along the way.
Sure, it's only the "differences" that are the issue, but those differences will not be backward compatible - e.g. DRMed content will not be playable in a non-DRM player.
But H264(v1) is unaffected. If someone finds a way to implement it by 2016 (meaning write software, engineer a squirrel, etc) based on public domain knowledge, no amount of fiddling with the H264 standard can prevent it.
What this means is that over time, people will still file new implementations, but the older ones will also be opening up. Come 2016, there might be a way to do H264 without a patent license if someone clever figures out what pieces are free to use and figures out an alternative to the parts still under patent.
That's not good enough because you can be sure that by 2016 MPEG-LA with their co-conspirators (Apple et al.) will have come up with new patents, like you said, and incorporate it into the "standard". H264 implementation the way it exists today may not be adequate by 2016. Therefore, the argument that today's H264 implementation might be implemented in a way to avoid patents by 2016 is not good enough as that will likely be useless by that time.
The problem here is not which patents expire when. The problem is the motivation behind standardizing on H264. It is not in MPEG-LA's advantage to license the H264 for free forever, or they would have done so already. It is to their advantage to be as liberal as possible now in order to hit a larger jackpot few years down the road. And, the road of patents is never-ending - just introduce a new patented software "feature" into the standard every few years and, as long as you get the major licensees on board (Apple, Youtube), you can keep the format locked up forever.
Passenger 1: the reason for the bumpy ride is that there is a problem with the plane and the pilot is dead!! Passenger 2: no, the real problem with all this is that I can't recline my seat, and left channel on my headphone has some annoying static.
Sometimes one needs to look up and see a bigger picture.
Again, the Dems get power, and waste it. At least that's better than the Republicans, who get power and use it...
The problem is not Democrats or Republicans. The problem is that they have too much power, and they are not giving it up. Huge federal government getting into every aspect of your life, 2-party locked down political system, etc. - it was never intended like this.
That's weird that she wouldn't wonder why she gets signed off from Yahoo messenger every time she opens the link her friend IMed her. I've heard a lot of similar complaints about iPod touch and iPhone from many non-technical people.
Either she does and deals with it like everyone else, or you are full of you know what.
Instead of justifying the single-tasking system (and taking 1000s of steps backwards to the DOS era), why can't the same system intelligently decide what is needed to run in the background and what can be shut down? Actually, it already partially does that for you - it does multi-tasking as long as Apple's apps are involved. Non-Apple apps get the boot; but this gets into the locked down system issue and that's a different topic altogether.
And while Jobs is an avid competitor, I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.
Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices. Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple, to.Mac and now iDisk. Google is encroaching, encroaching, encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is. Apple probably feels betrayed by Google (and vice versa, after the rejection of Google's app in the AppStore.)
All three are competing with each other in various sectors, but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now, it is between Apple and Google.
Well then Apple has something coming to them if they don't see that they will have just as much (if not more) beef with MS as they do with Google. Let's go through your list:
- alternate ecosystem to Apple on mobile devices: check (wait until WinMo7 later this year for a bigger surprise) -.mac: check (hotmail, msn, etc.) - iDisk: check
They will still be competing in the area of phones, tablet devices, notebooks/netbooks. And we didn't even get started on desktop/laptop operating systems where MS has anywhere from 80% to 90% market share.
Oh and they've got something else coming to them - MS' motto is NOT "do no evil". In short, they should be aligning themselves with Google even if they get half the "deal" they think they are getting from MS. I thought they'd been burned before by the same company... fool me once....
If Apple went with all carriers who wanted them and released a handful of branded designs, it's sales would soar.
Maybe, but that's no the core difference between Google's and Apple's strategies. Apple's model is similar to RIM and Palm where they want to be the producers and the vendors of hardware and software. On the other hand, Google's strategy is similar to Microsoft's where they provide software to any hardware manufacturer.
So, Apple still wants to be Apple; and Google wants to be the new Microsoft.
It takes away my right to copy the code, and redistribute it under a BSD licence, or to copy the code, put it in my closed product and sell it for profit and refuse to release the source.
Those are not your rights in most places in the world!!! Those freedoms are taken away by the copyright laws, NOT by the GPL!
GPL relies on the copyright law to grant you more freedoms under it. If there is no copyright law, there is no need/requirement to follow the GPL - i.e. you can distribute at will or do anything you pleased.
Try again, and while you are at it, also explain how GPL regulates your USE of the software, as most EULAs do, and as you were arguing before.
Surely, most copyright laws don't cover the use of the software, those conditions are placed by EULAs in addition to the copyright protections they already get.
the software comes with a set of conditions (legally protected and enforceable conditions) for its use.
No it doesn't! GPL does not tell you how you can USE the software; only how you can redistribute it - the right you don't have under most copyright laws.
As I said before - stop spreading the FUD.
The GPL takes away my right to do certain things too
Yet you fail to name any. Please do! Oh wait, there are none.
If you think "well, the licence should be ignored" then sure, as long as the GPL can also be ignored at will, or any other software licence for that matter.
Please stop the FUD! The GPL is a license that gives you the right to redistribute the copyrighted work - the right you didn't otherwise have. It in no way restricts the rights you would otherwise have without the GPL.
The typical EULA "licenses" you are referring to are designed to govern your use of the copyrighted work and take away rights you would otherwise have.
So, sure, you can incorporate everything under an umbrella of a generic term "license" - but they are different - one grants you powers, and the other takes them away.
It could very well be that they'd be treated differently in court where the ones that attempt to take away the rights that you should otherwise have may not be fully legal or enfoceable. But the ones that give you additional powers wouldn't have any issues.
So yeah, there's not that much prior art, but there's not that much "posterior art", either.
I haven't read the patent but judging by the comments of the posters who appear to have done so (like yourself), it is not too far-fetched to have an activation system where a significant functionality of a program is delivered during such process. This is especially true if a software product is employing a plugin-type system where a user can purchase/acquire a registration code, enter it in the existing software package and download the plugin.
I can't remember personally using such activation process, but it wouldn't be shocking to me if one was able to download one of Eclipse's 3rd party proprietary plugins this way, or MS Visual Studio, some Adobe products. Or self-updating programs like anti-virus where once it has run out of the initial registration period, you re-activate it some time (maybe weeks/months) later, and the software updates both virus definition data and runnable binaries during the process. The same may be true for Apple's Quicktime for Windows upgrade to Pro mechanism, and other similar products.
The FusionGarage guys seem to have a pretty good point in that Arringon apparently never delivered on his promised to hook them up with VC and supplier contacts.
I don't know - I read the e-mails attached to the lawsuit, and they pretty much say TechCrunch would acquire Fusion Garage, and FG's investors would have 35% stake in the resulting company. At least, it looks like that was the intention of FG and TC, and FG CEO was grateful for it; that is, until FG delivered a new bombshell proposition of 90/10 split favoring them, supposedly coming from the Bruce Lee dude.
We still have to wait for FG's response, and what evidence they produce of your claimed promise of "VC and supplier contacts" but so far I didn't see anything to that point.
TechCrunch is a blog, not a news site. It is filled with opinions from different bloggers that they employ, including Michael Arrington's himself. It is perfectly valid to discuss the lawsuit on his blog.
However, moving on from that point, I read the lawsuit including the allegations and attached e-mail evidence. 2 things I noticed are (IANAL):
1. Michael Arrington loses some points by (a) not having something resembling a formal contract in place for the joint project - yes, there are e-mails going back and forth discussing the deal, but the absence of a contract, even a couple of pages signed by both parties (at the very least saying who does/owns what, etc.), does not reinforce his commitment and perceived value of his team's contributions to the project; and (b) not talking to investors directly to negotiate the acquisition of the company. It seems like the CEO of the Fusion Garage was not in full control of the situation, and Michael Arrington would have been prudent in communicating and negotiating with all parties at the table, including the "Bruce Lee" dude.
2. It looks really bad for Fusion Garage because it looks like they were in cahoots with their "investors" from some unknown point on, and waited until last minute to disclose their "disagreement" so they could present their product at the same time. So, instead of TechCrunch owning 65% of the merged company (as they had been discussing and intending all along), they were proposing TechCrunch own 10% of the company. Umm... yeah, not exactly a minor detail, dudes.
To me it looks like Michael Arrington got scammed. He trusted the small upstart "company" in Singapore that hadn't developed or marketed any product in the past. He took the risk, he didn't keep on top of them, and it backfired. On the other hand, they took all they could from TechCrunch's marketing power and publicity, and are now trying to run away with the product, leaving him empty-handed. In hindsight, if Michael Arrington was really interested in a joint venture, he should have gone with a little more reputable partner, or even started his own company, whether in the U.S. or offshore.
I am in your boat too - I like the Galaxy hardware. It's frustrating that their hardware can be top notch, but their software support is horrible and mostly nonexistent. It's 2 completely different parts of the company (2 different companies even), I understand.
Also, I tried to download the bada SDK and IDE, website said I need to register. I took the bait and registered as a developer at developer.bada.com - what a waste. After giving out my personal info and assigning over all of my privacy and other rights, I still can't download the SDK or the IDE - now they tell me I have to become a PARTNER!!! In order to do that, I have to send them a request form, and they'll selectively approve applications.
Samsung have their heads stuck up their collective behinds right now, and are being cocky probably proud of their global market share. But that market share is fragile if you don't deliver above and beyond the competition - just ask Motorola.
That's not exactly the same. In the case you cite, the law prevented them to do extra work to collect extra revenue and instill extra fear - basically it prevented them from gaining extra "luxury" of those things. It didn't threaten them in any way, or force them to do anything different during their day-to-day business or in a big picture.
On the other hand, in the case in TFA, the law should be used against them to file criminal charges, send people behind bars, go after the individuals as well as the corporations to the point where they have to declare bankruptcies and, if they survive it somehow, completely turn their business practices around. To some degree, they need to be held up as examples that for-profit willful copyright infringement is a very serious matter.
How much are you willing to bet that is what's going to happen?
Nonsense. We all know that if you pay for the law that law cannot be used against you - it's like you are the owner of the law and you can direct the minions to use it as you see fit. That was not the case for the GM from what you describe.
So, don't be expecting the "copyright police" busting down doors, shutting down any major labels and arresting any of their executives to make examples out of. That's not how the corporate representation in government works.
You could further subdivide them by having several groups of them within one virtual desktop. You wouldn't need to leave the desktop to access each group. I know I will be using it.
I hear what you are saying, but cheaper means less profitable too. The phones similar to what that seem high end now will be a lot "cheaper" (from multiple manufacturers competing) 2 years from now. So, is Nokia going to sell its "feature-oriented" phones for - $5 w/no contract? That's a niche market and won't make them a great deal of money. They can't compete unless they change with the rest of the industry.
Apple beat everybody to the punch, but they don't show interest in mid to lower end products (yet); Google was late to the party, but is still able to pull it off. Microsoft and Nokia are way too late to do anything about this; and unless Nokia hurries up, and even changes some of their plans, they'll feel the pain in a couple of years.
Is it a good idea to put most of your eggs in the Symbian basket? It seems OK now, but think about it 2-5 years down the road - I don't know, but I wouldn't have any warm fuzzies.
Who cares about Android anyway? It still can't install/run applications to/from its own memory card, the most severe limitation. Its own google map support is a joke compared to Nokia's support or Apple's support (don't ask me why, I don't know). And Nokia still makes tons of money for every iPhone that Apple sells because of the licensed Nokia technology it has in it.
Wrong on all counts:
1. You can most certainly install apps from the SD card on all Android phones. Future phones will have more local storage, so you won't need to rely on a memory card - and you could say the same about iPhone - hey, it doesn't even have a slot for a card - who cares about iPhone anyway?
2. Google maps support is excellent with Android 2.0, better than with any other phone currently.
3. So, does Nokia want to become a licensing business? Or keep dominating their market with their own innovative devices?
The cell phone market is changing worldwide and in the U.S.. What US carriers didn't allow before, they are allowing now because they can't give up that much additional revenue.
Within next year, Android phones will be free with contract. Within 2 years, a low end Android phone could go for $20-$30 with no contract, even for pay-as-you-go plans.
What you are saying is what should be in full swing right now. The way it's going by the time all that is done, Android will be on phones that are selling for $19.99 with most manufacturers on board, and Nokia's share will dwindle to next to nothing. Their phones will look like bricks from last century. It's a chess game, Google and Apple will not stop. Nokia will be 3 moves behind a year from now if they continue this route.
The N900 on the other hand is just phuquing unbelievable. Once they put QT on top of Maemo Linux, it will be so far away from any othe the other phone OS's, that there just will be no contest.
They should have done that years ago, then they would have been ahead by a mile right now. But no, they had no balls. Trolltech was always there, they were always doing their thing - remember Qtopia and the Greenphone? They always had the software and the technology that can and should be taken to the next step.
Now they may go the way of Windows Mobile, with the promises of things that are year(s) away to be introduced to the market, and still beating the near dead horse that is Symbian. Maybe in the next 2 years at best they'll slow their market share slide, at worst they'll fill a niche.
I use Linux on pretty much all of my computers, and I guess I don't fall in with your stereotype that they can't make money off of me, because I pay for:
- Gizmo5 (have done so since pretty much their launch when were called sipphone.com) x 2 accounts - Google Voice x 2 accounts - a couple of other SIP service providers
There is one good solution - make your source available, and given that your program is of some minimal usefulness to their users, the distros will package it for you. Not only that, many times they will provide you with free computing resources to [re]compile your program if there is a change in one of the libraries it uses; for not just one, but as many architectures as they support; free bandwidth to distribute it; free bandwidth and support to push out its updates (security, version, etc.) to as many users as you have. Sometimes, they'll even give you feedback, patches, suggestions, AND thank you for it. If you have a subscription model like Google, there is no need to keep the client secret and charge for it.
While reading your post, I noticed that if you substitute Linux with Windows in your rant, you pretty much have the same point, but with none of the above available. There is no single ABI for Windows either. There are multiplicity of DLLs and components that are going to be different versions on different versions of the OS, different service pack levels, different versions of.net or some other random programs installed. Windows XP is different from Vista and 7. Same for Windows 2K[X], unless you have program XYZ already installed, unless it's below version X, unless, unless... Which means you provide all libraries with your app, or it potentially breaks for a lot of users. And no, it's not practical to test every single configuration either. Oh, and this before you get to Windows CE, Tablet PC, or, heaven forbid, Windows Mobile. They look nothing like a single product.
You are right. The administration had probably nothing to do with censoring that picture.
BUT... If I am Barack Obama, I am picking up my phone, calling Google and asking them to put the picture back. In fact, wasn't he in China just last week telling students there how back in the ol' US of A people can say all kinds of things about him, and how he loves freedom of speech?
And now, an offensive picture of his wife mysteriously disappears from the #1 web search engine. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? Think of all the propaganda that Chinese and other governments can orchestrate from this!
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot is famous for not understanding patents and often shouts "the sky is falling." My commentary was just to provide facts and a bit more understanding of how things really work.
I don't know about the "my knowledge is above all" attitude.
I'm not going to disagree with your conclusion. But your first paragraph is off on several counts. First off, H264 is already a published standard.
That's right.
Doesn't matter if new material is incorporated into it. The old stuff still hits public domain the same time it always was. Now maybe if there is an H264v2 and everyone switches to that, you might have patents to deal with. And only on the differences.
That was my point! It doesn't matter how you label it (H264v2, H264 extended, H264-drm, H264+, take a pick). For example, if H264 becomes standard for all video, by 2016 you can be reasonably certain there will be some sort of DRM and other "features" tacked on to it. The problem is - today's implementation will not be sufficient to decode and "play" the content that will become "standard" in 2016.
There are more than one ways to do this - one of them it's not inconceivable that MPEG-LA, Apple, Nokia, YouTube, etc. will have cross-licensing agreements and will be pushing the standard forward together, making sure the format stays locked up along the way.
Sure, it's only the "differences" that are the issue, but those differences will not be backward compatible - e.g. DRMed content will not be playable in a non-DRM player.
But H264(v1) is unaffected. If someone finds a way to implement it by 2016 (meaning write software, engineer a squirrel, etc) based on public domain knowledge, no amount of fiddling with the H264 standard can prevent it.
I like the optimistic thinking though.
What this means is that over time, people will still file new implementations, but the older ones will also be opening up. Come 2016, there might be a way to do H264 without a patent license if someone clever figures out what pieces are free to use and figures out an alternative to the parts still under patent.
That's not good enough because you can be sure that by 2016 MPEG-LA with their co-conspirators (Apple et al.) will have come up with new patents, like you said, and incorporate it into the "standard". H264 implementation the way it exists today may not be adequate by 2016. Therefore, the argument that today's H264 implementation might be implemented in a way to avoid patents by 2016 is not good enough as that will likely be useless by that time.
The problem here is not which patents expire when. The problem is the motivation behind standardizing on H264. It is not in MPEG-LA's advantage to license the H264 for free forever, or they would have done so already. It is to their advantage to be as liberal as possible now in order to hit a larger jackpot few years down the road. And, the road of patents is never-ending - just introduce a new patented software "feature" into the standard every few years and, as long as you get the major licensees on board (Apple, Youtube), you can keep the format locked up forever.
Passenger 1: the reason for the bumpy ride is that there is a problem with the plane and the pilot is dead!!
Passenger 2: no, the real problem with all this is that I can't recline my seat, and left channel on my headphone has some annoying static.
Sometimes one needs to look up and see a bigger picture.
Again, the Dems get power, and waste it. At least that's better than the Republicans, who get power and use it...
The problem is not Democrats or Republicans. The problem is that they have too much power, and they are not giving it up. Huge federal government getting into every aspect of your life, 2-party locked down political system, etc. - it was never intended like this.
That's weird that she wouldn't wonder why she gets signed off from Yahoo messenger every time she opens the link her friend IMed her. I've heard a lot of similar complaints about iPod touch and iPhone from many non-technical people.
Either she does and deals with it like everyone else, or you are full of you know what.
Instead of justifying the single-tasking system (and taking 1000s of steps backwards to the DOS era), why can't the same system intelligently decide what is needed to run in the background and what can be shut down? Actually, it already partially does that for you - it does multi-tasking as long as Apple's apps are involved. Non-Apple apps get the boot; but this gets into the locked down system issue and that's a different topic altogether.
All this huff about the system being locked down is irrelevant.
It is not only relevant, but very important on 2 fronts:
1. As long as bypassing the "lock" on a device you own is against the law (that law being brought to you by the same companies who make "locks"); and
2. Raise public awareness of the existence of such "lock" and #1 above.
And while Jobs is an avid competitor, I seriously doubt that the has any animus for Microsoft.
Google, on the other hand, is threatening Apple in its biggest growth market: mobile devices. Google offers an alternate ecosystem to Apple, to .Mac and now iDisk. Google is encroaching, encroaching, encroaching more into Apple territory than Microsoft is. Apple probably feels betrayed by Google (and vice versa, after the rejection of Google's app in the AppStore.)
All three are competing with each other in various sectors, but I think if there is bad blood anywhere right now, it is between Apple and Google.
Well then Apple has something coming to them if they don't see that they will have just as much (if not more) beef with MS as they do with Google. Let's go through your list:
- alternate ecosystem to Apple on mobile devices: check (wait until WinMo7 later this year for a bigger surprise) .mac: check (hotmail, msn, etc.)
-
- iDisk: check
They will still be competing in the area of phones, tablet devices, notebooks/netbooks. And we didn't even get started on desktop/laptop operating systems where MS has anywhere from 80% to 90% market share.
Oh and they've got something else coming to them - MS' motto is NOT "do no evil". In short, they should be aligning themselves with Google even if they get half the "deal" they think they are getting from MS. I thought they'd been burned before by the same company... fool me once....
If Apple went with all carriers who wanted them and released a handful of branded designs, it's sales would soar.
Maybe, but that's no the core difference between Google's and Apple's strategies. Apple's model is similar to RIM and Palm where they want to be the producers and the vendors of hardware and software. On the other hand, Google's strategy is similar to Microsoft's where they provide software to any hardware manufacturer.
So, Apple still wants to be Apple; and Google wants to be the new Microsoft.
It takes away my right to copy the code, and redistribute it under a BSD licence, or to copy the code, put it in my closed product and sell it for profit and refuse to release the source.
Those are not your rights in most places in the world!!! Those freedoms are taken away by the copyright laws, NOT by the GPL!
GPL relies on the copyright law to grant you more freedoms under it. If there is no copyright law, there is no need/requirement to follow the GPL - i.e. you can distribute at will or do anything you pleased.
Try again, and while you are at it, also explain how GPL regulates your USE of the software, as most EULAs do, and as you were arguing before.
Surely, most copyright laws don't cover the use of the software, those conditions are placed by EULAs in addition to the copyright protections they already get.
the software comes with a set of conditions (legally protected and enforceable conditions) for its use.
No it doesn't! GPL does not tell you how you can USE the software; only how you can redistribute it - the right you don't have under most copyright laws.
As I said before - stop spreading the FUD.
The GPL takes away my right to do certain things too
Yet you fail to name any. Please do! Oh wait, there are none.
If you think "well, the licence should be ignored" then sure, as long as the GPL can also be ignored at will, or any other software licence for that matter.
Please stop the FUD! The GPL is a license that gives you the right to redistribute the copyrighted work - the right you didn't otherwise have. It in no way restricts the rights you would otherwise have without the GPL.
The typical EULA "licenses" you are referring to are designed to govern your use of the copyrighted work and take away rights you would otherwise have.
So, sure, you can incorporate everything under an umbrella of a generic term "license" - but they are different - one grants you powers, and the other takes them away.
It could very well be that they'd be treated differently in court where the ones that attempt to take away the rights that you should otherwise have may not be fully legal or enfoceable. But the ones that give you additional powers wouldn't have any issues.
So yeah, there's not that much prior art, but there's not that much "posterior art", either.
I haven't read the patent but judging by the comments of the posters who appear to have done so (like yourself), it is not too far-fetched to have an activation system where a significant functionality of a program is delivered during such process. This is especially true if a software product is employing a plugin-type system where a user can purchase/acquire a registration code, enter it in the existing software package and download the plugin.
I can't remember personally using such activation process, but it wouldn't be shocking to me if one was able to download one of Eclipse's 3rd party proprietary plugins this way, or MS Visual Studio, some Adobe products. Or self-updating programs like anti-virus where once it has run out of the initial registration period, you re-activate it some time (maybe weeks/months) later, and the software updates both virus definition data and runnable binaries during the process. The same may be true for Apple's Quicktime for Windows upgrade to Pro mechanism, and other similar products.
The FusionGarage guys seem to have a pretty good point in that Arringon apparently never delivered on his promised to hook them up with VC and supplier contacts.
I don't know - I read the e-mails attached to the lawsuit, and they pretty much say TechCrunch would acquire Fusion Garage, and FG's investors would have 35% stake in the resulting company. At least, it looks like that was the intention of FG and TC, and FG CEO was grateful for it; that is, until FG delivered a new bombshell proposition of 90/10 split favoring them, supposedly coming from the Bruce Lee dude.
We still have to wait for FG's response, and what evidence they produce of your claimed promise of "VC and supplier contacts" but so far I didn't see anything to that point.
TechCrunch is a blog, not a news site. It is filled with opinions from different bloggers that they employ, including Michael Arrington's himself. It is perfectly valid to discuss the lawsuit on his blog.
However, moving on from that point, I read the lawsuit including the allegations and attached e-mail evidence. 2 things I noticed are (IANAL):
1. Michael Arrington loses some points by (a) not having something resembling a formal contract in place for the joint project - yes, there are e-mails going back and forth discussing the deal, but the absence of a contract, even a couple of pages signed by both parties (at the very least saying who does/owns what, etc.), does not reinforce his commitment and perceived value of his team's contributions to the project; and (b) not talking to investors directly to negotiate the acquisition of the company. It seems like the CEO of the Fusion Garage was not in full control of the situation, and Michael Arrington would have been prudent in communicating and negotiating with all parties at the table, including the "Bruce Lee" dude.
2. It looks really bad for Fusion Garage because it looks like they were in cahoots with their "investors" from some unknown point on, and waited until last minute to disclose their "disagreement" so they could present their product at the same time. So, instead of TechCrunch owning 65% of the merged company (as they had been discussing and intending all along), they were proposing TechCrunch own 10% of the company. Umm... yeah, not exactly a minor detail, dudes.
To me it looks like Michael Arrington got scammed. He trusted the small upstart "company" in Singapore that hadn't developed or marketed any product in the past. He took the risk, he didn't keep on top of them, and it backfired. On the other hand, they took all they could from TechCrunch's marketing power and publicity, and are now trying to run away with the product, leaving him empty-handed. In hindsight, if Michael Arrington was really interested in a joint venture, he should have gone with a little more reputable partner, or even started his own company, whether in the U.S. or offshore.
I am in your boat too - I like the Galaxy hardware. It's frustrating that their hardware can be top notch, but their software support is horrible and mostly nonexistent. It's 2 completely different parts of the company (2 different companies even), I understand.
Also, I tried to download the bada SDK and IDE, website said I need to register. I took the bait and registered as a developer at developer.bada.com - what a waste. After giving out my personal info and assigning over all of my privacy and other rights, I still can't download the SDK or the IDE - now they tell me I have to become a PARTNER!!! In order to do that, I have to send them a request form, and they'll selectively approve applications.
Samsung have their heads stuck up their collective behinds right now, and are being cocky probably proud of their global market share. But that market share is fragile if you don't deliver above and beyond the competition - just ask Motorola.
That's not exactly the same. In the case you cite, the law prevented them to do extra work to collect extra revenue and instill extra fear - basically it prevented them from gaining extra "luxury" of those things. It didn't threaten them in any way, or force them to do anything different during their day-to-day business or in a big picture.
On the other hand, in the case in TFA, the law should be used against them to file criminal charges, send people behind bars, go after the individuals as well as the corporations to the point where they have to declare bankruptcies and, if they survive it somehow, completely turn their business practices around. To some degree, they need to be held up as examples that for-profit willful copyright infringement is a very serious matter.
How much are you willing to bet that is what's going to happen?
Nonsense. We all know that if you pay for the law that law cannot be used against you - it's like you are the owner of the law and you can direct the minions to use it as you see fit. That was not the case for the GM from what you describe.
So, don't be expecting the "copyright police" busting down doors, shutting down any major labels and arresting any of their executives to make examples out of. That's not how the corporate representation in government works.
You could further subdivide them by having several groups of them within one virtual desktop. You wouldn't need to leave the desktop to access each group. I know I will be using it.
I hear what you are saying, but cheaper means less profitable too. The phones similar to what that seem high end now will be a lot "cheaper" (from multiple manufacturers competing) 2 years from now. So, is Nokia going to sell its "feature-oriented" phones for - $5 w/no contract? That's a niche market and won't make them a great deal of money. They can't compete unless they change with the rest of the industry.
Apple beat everybody to the punch, but they don't show interest in mid to lower end products (yet); Google was late to the party, but is still able to pull it off. Microsoft and Nokia are way too late to do anything about this; and unless Nokia hurries up, and even changes some of their plans, they'll feel the pain in a couple of years.
Is it a good idea to put most of your eggs in the Symbian basket? It seems OK now, but think about it 2-5 years down the road - I don't know, but I wouldn't have any warm fuzzies.
Who cares about Android anyway? It still can't install/run applications to/from its own memory card, the most severe limitation. Its own google map support is a joke compared to Nokia's support or Apple's support (don't ask me why, I don't know). And Nokia still makes tons of money for every iPhone that Apple sells because of the licensed Nokia technology it has in it.
Wrong on all counts:
1. You can most certainly install apps from the SD card on all Android phones. Future phones will have more local storage, so you won't need to rely on a memory card - and you could say the same about iPhone - hey, it doesn't even have a slot for a card - who cares about iPhone anyway?
2. Google maps support is excellent with Android 2.0, better than with any other phone currently.
3. So, does Nokia want to become a licensing business? Or keep dominating their market with their own innovative devices?
The cell phone market is changing worldwide and in the U.S.. What US carriers didn't allow before, they are allowing now because they can't give up that much additional revenue.
Within next year, Android phones will be free with contract. Within 2 years, a low end Android phone could go for $20-$30 with no contract, even for pay-as-you-go plans.
What you are saying is what should be in full swing right now. The way it's going by the time all that is done, Android will be on phones that are selling for $19.99 with most manufacturers on board, and Nokia's share will dwindle to next to nothing. Their phones will look like bricks from last century. It's a chess game, Google and Apple will not stop. Nokia will be 3 moves behind a year from now if they continue this route.
The N900 on the other hand is just phuquing unbelievable. Once they put QT on top of Maemo Linux, it will be so far away from any othe the other phone OS's, that there just will be no contest.
They should have done that years ago, then they would have been ahead by a mile right now. But no, they had no balls. Trolltech was always there, they were always doing their thing - remember Qtopia and the Greenphone? They always had the software and the technology that can and should be taken to the next step.
Now they may go the way of Windows Mobile, with the promises of things that are year(s) away to be introduced to the market, and still beating the near dead horse that is Symbian. Maybe in the next 2 years at best they'll slow their market share slide, at worst they'll fill a niche.
I use Linux on pretty much all of my computers, and I guess I don't fall in with your stereotype that they can't make money off of me, because I pay for:
- Gizmo5 (have done so since pretty much their launch when were called sipphone.com) x 2 accounts
- Google Voice x 2 accounts
- a couple of other SIP service providers
There is one good solution - make your source available, and given that your program is of some minimal usefulness to their users, the distros will package it for you. Not only that, many times they will provide you with free computing resources to [re]compile your program if there is a change in one of the libraries it uses; for not just one, but as many architectures as they support; free bandwidth to distribute it; free bandwidth and support to push out its updates (security, version, etc.) to as many users as you have. Sometimes, they'll even give you feedback, patches, suggestions, AND thank you for it. If you have a subscription model like Google, there is no need to keep the client secret and charge for it.
While reading your post, I noticed that if you substitute Linux with Windows in your rant, you pretty much have the same point, but with none of the above available. There is no single ABI for Windows either. There are multiplicity of DLLs and components that are going to be different versions on different versions of the OS, different service pack levels, different versions of .net or some other random programs installed. Windows XP is different from Vista and 7. Same for Windows 2K[X], unless you have program XYZ already installed, unless it's below version X, unless, unless... Which means you provide all libraries with your app, or it potentially breaks for a lot of users. And no, it's not practical to test every single configuration either. Oh, and this before you get to Windows CE, Tablet PC, or, heaven forbid, Windows Mobile. They look nothing like a single product.
You are right. The administration had probably nothing to do with censoring that picture.
BUT... If I am Barack Obama, I am picking up my phone, calling Google and asking them to put the picture back. In fact, wasn't he in China just last week telling students there how back in the ol' US of A people can say all kinds of things about him, and how he loves freedom of speech?
And now, an offensive picture of his wife mysteriously disappears from the #1 web search engine. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? Think of all the propaganda that Chinese and other governments can orchestrate from this!