I think a lot of people miss the point. The copyright owner chooses the license. If you don't like the license, don't use it (as FreeBSD did).
Whether you are forced to share or not should be one of thing things the project/company should decide on early. If it's not important, then it doesn't matter. If it *is* important, then select the appropriate license.
It is not like you can pay Microsoft for a windows license, and then violate their license (remember hacking windows NT workstation to run IIS server?) and think it wouldn't get you into trouble. Same thing here.
If you don't like the license, don't use it. Write your own. Simple as that.
Don't understand why people keep making it such a huge issue.
Nexus has always been a small volume specialty phone.
Now that Google has expanded it into the broad market, the dynamics are different. Apparently that is a difficult concept for some people.
Lets change it around a little bit. Do you recommend friends and family who are swapping over from iPhone or Blackberry to a Nexus device or some other device?
Every one that gets on a Nexus reduces the market for the other manufacturers. Some will decide it reduces it too much.
And it is irrelevant whether Google is a manufacturer or not. I'm talking about companies who are selling Android devices. Google just joined that rank in a very big way, targeting normal consumers. If you cannot understand such a simple concept, it will be difficult to continue this discussion.
because Google guarantees Asus a minimum volume. So they know they are making money on this particular phone. And they get other benefits such as being able to work with the Android developers directly, transferring skills, etc.
But in the longer time frame? After Microsoft announced Windows RT (ARM based), how many OEMs decided to not build a Windows RT tablet?
I find it funny people see it happening with Microsoft entering the tablet market, and with the subsequent exit of most OEMS from the Windows RT (Arm based) market but not see it with Google doing the same thing.
Sure there're things like specs and so on. And some people will buy non Nexus branded stuff. But what does a non-Nexus branded Android device get you?
o lousy firmware updates, if any o no security updates o people telling you to buy a Nexus phone next time if you want firmware updates o annoyware
Given all that, *why* would most consumers want to go for a non-Nexus phone/tablet that is priced higher than a Nexus phone/tablet?
If Google sells the Nexus 7 at or near cost of $199 (regardless of whoever who makes it), and it does very well, as I think it will, then more and more people will buy the Nexus 7.
This means when other OHA members try to sell a 7" tablet, they will have to try to meet the Nexus 7 price.
But they also need to have a profit margin.
Now, think carefully here. If Google is selling a nice tablet at cost at $199, do you think the OHA members would be selling their 7" tablets at cost, or at cost + profit? Now, and here is the important part, it's called algebra. Do you think the selling price will be $199 or more? If the selling price of the OHA 7" tablet is $199, that means their cost is less (remember: cost + profit = $199).
But we just showed that a quality 7" tablet costs $199.
That means it'll be an inferior OHA 7" tablet since the cost has to be $199.
On the other hand, if the OHA 7" tablet cost the same as the Nexus 7, this means cost = $199. The equation becomes $199 + profit = $?.
In that case, why would consumers want to buy something that costs more, when they can buy the Nexus 7 for $199?
Do you get it now? Do I need to draw pictures for you too?
If every FRAND licensee asks for 2.25%, very soon there'll be nothing left. There are thousands of patents on these phones nowadays. I highly doubt 2.25% is non-discriminatory nor fair.
It is only reasonable if Motorola is asking for the same or similar rates as they ask from other licensees. I cannot see anyone paying 2.25% for a small set of patents.
I don't think you are right though, so I'd like to see some evidence. If this is true, it changes the conversation around. So, really, I'd like to see this.
Thanks.
[ps: The reason I don't think it is true is because of what was revealed in the Motorola/Microsoft trial, where Microsoft paid $6mil/year for 2300 H264 patents, and Motorola wanted $4bil/year for their 50 H264 patents]
If you get to charge whatever you want to charge, then that throws that *FAIR* and *REASONABLE* right out the fucking window doesn't it?
Again, Motorola has already been shown to be unfair. Microsoft pays $6mil/year for 2300 H264 patents. And Motorola wants $4billion for their 50 H264 royalties?
Which part of FAIR and REASONABLE do you not understand? Fucking fanbois.
Oh. Now we're actually getting somewhere. Fair and reasonable.
So why is Motorola asking for unfair pricing? Please go check and see what other manufacturers have to pay and what Motorola is asking for Apple and see the difference.
Help me understand why anyone would buy a Galaxy Tab 2 when the Nexus 7 cost $150 less?
Now help me understand why Samsung would be interested in selling Galaxy Tab 2 at $199 (cost) or not selling Galaxy Tab 2 at $349 and seeing all the sales go to Nexus 7?
At no point am I talking about Google making a profit. I'm talking about Samsung's curious need for a profit. Or are you really that dense?
Do you understand the concept of "FRAND" patent? You might want to look it up. You are *NOT* allowed to charge one customer more than what you charge another customer, within reasonable bounds.
How is it not negotiating in good faith? There are hundreds, if not thousands of patents involved, from multiple different companies. If each of them gets 2.25%, how the fuck are you supposed to even sell a phone?
Slashdot Mirror
Using your arguments, then both Microsoft and Google are doing the same thing.
Or are you saying Google is open source, so it is not? Well, so is the OSX itself (without the UI). http://opensource.apple.com/
Are you aware of Grand Central Dispatch, which has been out for a couple of years now?
I think a lot of people miss the point. The copyright owner chooses the license. If you don't like the license, don't use it (as FreeBSD did).
Whether you are forced to share or not should be one of thing things the project/company should decide on early. If it's not important, then it doesn't matter. If it *is* important, then select the appropriate license.
It is not like you can pay Microsoft for a windows license, and then violate their license (remember hacking windows NT workstation to run IIS server?) and think it wouldn't get you into trouble. Same thing here.
If you don't like the license, don't use it. Write your own. Simple as that.
Don't understand why people keep making it such a huge issue.
Seriously? You're smoking some damned good shit over there.
"look at my l33t skills".
go learn some more, grasshopper.
So... Apple isn't a manufacturer of iPhones then?
What the fuck are you smoking? I said Google is another *SELLER* of Android devices.
If you think current major brands such as LG, Samsung and so on like the idea of competing with their supplier, you're fucking nuts.
Nexus has always been a small volume specialty phone.
Now that Google has expanded it into the broad market, the dynamics are different. Apparently that is a difficult concept for some people.
Lets change it around a little bit. Do you recommend friends and family who are swapping over from iPhone or Blackberry to a Nexus device or some other device?
Every one that gets on a Nexus reduces the market for the other manufacturers. Some will decide it reduces it too much.
And it is irrelevant whether Google is a manufacturer or not. I'm talking about companies who are selling Android devices. Google just joined that rank in a very big way, targeting normal consumers. If you cannot understand such a simple concept, it will be difficult to continue this discussion.
because Google guarantees Asus a minimum volume. So they know they are making money on this particular phone. And they get other benefits such as being able to work with the Android developers directly, transferring skills, etc.
But in the longer time frame? After Microsoft announced Windows RT (ARM based), how many OEMs decided to not build a Windows RT tablet?
If you can't see that, you're blind.
I find it funny people see it happening with Microsoft entering the tablet market, and with the subsequent exit of most OEMS from the Windows RT (Arm based) market but not see it with Google doing the same thing.
Sure there're things like specs and so on. And some people will buy non Nexus branded stuff. But what does a non-Nexus branded Android device get you?
o lousy firmware updates, if any
o no security updates
o people telling you to buy a Nexus phone next time if you want firmware updates
o annoyware
Given all that, *why* would most consumers want to go for a non-Nexus phone/tablet that is priced higher than a Nexus phone/tablet?
Don't disagree that it may have issues in other countries. Definitely don't use it in Japan, though they probably have started improving it.
Apparently, neither does the FTC.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/ftc-staff-said-to-formally-recommend-google-patent-suit.html
Guess what. FTC thinks Google's been abusing FRAND patents.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/ftc-staff-said-to-formally-recommend-google-patent-suit.html
Obviously the maps have issues, especially with the 3D rendering. The issues are just not as bad as all the idiot fandroids make it out to be.
Let me explain it in small words for the AC.
If Google sells the Nexus 7 at or near cost of $199 (regardless of whoever who makes it), and it does very well, as I think it will, then more and more people will buy the Nexus 7.
This means when other OHA members try to sell a 7" tablet, they will have to try to meet the Nexus 7 price.
But they also need to have a profit margin.
Now, think carefully here. If Google is selling a nice tablet at cost at $199, do you think the OHA members would be selling their 7" tablets at cost, or at cost + profit? Now, and here is the important part, it's called algebra. Do you think the selling price will be $199 or more? If the selling price of the OHA 7" tablet is $199, that means their cost is less (remember: cost + profit = $199).
But we just showed that a quality 7" tablet costs $199.
That means it'll be an inferior OHA 7" tablet since the cost has to be $199.
On the other hand, if the OHA 7" tablet cost the same as the Nexus 7, this means cost = $199. The equation becomes $199 + profit = $?.
In that case, why would consumers want to buy something that costs more, when they can buy the Nexus 7 for $199?
Do you get it now? Do I need to draw pictures for you too?
If every FRAND licensee asks for 2.25%, very soon there'll be nothing left. There are thousands of patents on these phones nowadays. I highly doubt 2.25% is non-discriminatory nor fair.
Apparently you don't understand what the fuck FRAND means.
It is only reasonable if Motorola is asking for the same or similar rates as they ask from other licensees. I cannot see anyone paying 2.25% for a small set of patents.
This is the first reasonable response.
I don't think you are right though, so I'd like to see some evidence. If this is true, it changes the conversation around. So, really, I'd like to see this.
Thanks.
[ps: The reason I don't think it is true is because of what was revealed in the Motorola/Microsoft trial, where Microsoft paid $6mil/year for 2300 H264 patents, and Motorola wanted $4bil/year for their 50 H264 patents]
Perhaps you should understand what the fuck FRAND means before commenting?
If you get to charge whatever you want to charge, then that throws that *FAIR* and *REASONABLE* right out the fucking window doesn't it?
Again, Motorola has already been shown to be unfair. Microsoft pays $6mil/year for 2300 H264 patents. And Motorola wants $4billion for their 50 H264 royalties?
Which part of FAIR and REASONABLE do you not understand? Fucking fanbois.
Oh. Now we're actually getting somewhere. Fair and reasonable.
So why is Motorola asking for unfair pricing? Please go check and see what other manufacturers have to pay and what Motorola is asking for Apple and see the difference.
Nexus 7 (16GB) cost $199
Galaxy Tab 2 (16GB) cost $349
iPad Mini (16GB) cost $329.
Help me understand why anyone would buy a Galaxy Tab 2 when the Nexus 7 cost $150 less?
Now help me understand why Samsung would be interested in selling Galaxy Tab 2 at $199 (cost) or not selling Galaxy Tab 2 at $349 and seeing all the sales go to Nexus 7?
At no point am I talking about Google making a profit. I'm talking about Samsung's curious need for a profit. Or are you really that dense?
Do you understand the concept of "FRAND" patent? You might want to look it up. You are *NOT* allowed to charge one customer more than what you charge another customer, within reasonable bounds.
2.25% is clearly unreasonable.
Sure. Call Florian a shrill and therefore all the facts are suddenly wrong, right?
What do they call this kind of argument again...?
How is it not negotiating in good faith? There are hundreds, if not thousands of patents involved, from multiple different companies. If each of them gets 2.25%, how the fuck are you supposed to even sell a phone?
Do you actually understand logic and math?