Google wins when other manufacturers but Motorola Mobility can no longer use Android. The only way to get to this is via patent lawsuits because as Android is based on open source code, they have to release the source too.
Google tried to play this game before by not allowing their store, maps etc on "non-licensed" devices, but it wasn't enough to do it. Now they go the dirty way.
Yes, but only after they bought Motorola Mobility and went to the manufacturing business themselves. And there is no reason why Apple would not help them. It's a win-win situation, everybody wins (except for other Android manufacturers)
Ever since they bought out Motorola Mobility and started owning their own Android manufacturer, they've been bullying other handset makers with proxy wars via Motorola and Apple. Why anyone still uses Android, I don't know - maybe it would be good time to switch to proper Linux-based mobile OS like MeeGo. Or they could go with Windows Phone 7. Both OS have received nothing but praise and have big companies (Intel and Microsoft, respectively) backing them.
I know Google wants to see return for their Motorola Mobility investment but it's just sad that they do it cowardly via proxies. They should at least step forward and admit that this is fully about them wanting to control Android and the smart phone market. Of course, that would mean making the "Google" brand look bad, and that they don't want.
On that note, I find it really surprising that FTC and European Commission even allowed the Motorola Mobility to go through or that the other handset manufacturers haven't dropped Android yet. This will only mean problems to them and that should be quire clear to see. At least they should go with an OS that doesn't have vested interest towards its maker, like MeeGo or WP7.
If they want to do proper analysis, they should hand out coupons or similar in the Facebook page. You can't still figure it out 100%, but it's much better than asking where people heard about the place.
Advertisers can choose the countries they want to target. But I agree, Facebook demographics isn't bad. In fact, they're the best ones to advertise to (and I mean largest demographies, as Facebook pretty much has users from all demographics).
The problem is that you're basically limited to brand advertising with no way to target users who search for specific keyword, like with Google. This makes Facebook advertising much less valuable. Of course, they could help this by trying to lower advertising prices.. but it seems like it works for them anyway, so why would they do that.
The funny thing is that Facebook has much better "advertising" feature that is free, fanpages.
The problem isn't so much Facebook users (this includes pretty much everyone), but too high prices for non-targeted users. Yes, you can target by age and gender and such, but unlike with Google and AdWords you cannot target to specific interests or queries. Yet Facebook charges almost kind of prices per click than Google does.
I was actually surprised when I was looking at the prices the first time. I had the idea that I could advertise and get people much more cheaper from Facebook. But the prices are ridiculous. It's much better to use AdWords or Bing's AdCenter for some actual targeted queries if the price is going to be the same.
Wait, what? You honestly that for example Kim Jong-il was instable person? Maybe, just maybe he did what he needed to do when being attacked practically every other country than China on the planet.
Could you please citate any real warmongering that China or Russia have done? My understanding is that they have only cared about their internal politics. Only when threat from the US has arisen they have had the need to answer.
For me, both China and Russia seem much more peaceful than US.
Sorry, but no. The skill level required between virtual football and real life football is significantly different. Same is true for the entertainment value of watching them. The two just doesn't compare. It was already painful to take turns with friend when gaming back in the 90's when playing together, why the hell would I just want to watch now?
Slashdot Mirror
Google wins when other manufacturers but Motorola Mobility can no longer use Android. The only way to get to this is via patent lawsuits because as Android is based on open source code, they have to release the source too.
Google tried to play this game before by not allowing their store, maps etc on "non-licensed" devices, but it wasn't enough to do it. Now they go the dirty way.
Yes, but only after they bought Motorola Mobility and went to the manufacturing business themselves. And there is no reason why Apple would not help them. It's a win-win situation, everybody wins (except for other Android manufacturers)
I explained it in the post.. This is actually Google using Apple as a proxy company to sue and destroy other Android manufacturers.
Ever since they bought out Motorola Mobility and started owning their own Android manufacturer, they've been bullying other handset makers with proxy wars via Motorola and Apple. Why anyone still uses Android, I don't know - maybe it would be good time to switch to proper Linux-based mobile OS like MeeGo. Or they could go with Windows Phone 7. Both OS have received nothing but praise and have big companies (Intel and Microsoft, respectively) backing them.
I know Google wants to see return for their Motorola Mobility investment but it's just sad that they do it cowardly via proxies. They should at least step forward and admit that this is fully about them wanting to control Android and the smart phone market. Of course, that would mean making the "Google" brand look bad, and that they don't want.
On that note, I find it really surprising that FTC and European Commission even allowed the Motorola Mobility to go through or that the other handset manufacturers haven't dropped Android yet. This will only mean problems to them and that should be quire clear to see. At least they should go with an OS that doesn't have vested interest towards its maker, like MeeGo or WP7.
If they want to do proper analysis, they should hand out coupons or similar in the Facebook page. You can't still figure it out 100%, but it's much better than asking where people heard about the place.
Advertisers can choose the countries they want to target. But I agree, Facebook demographics isn't bad. In fact, they're the best ones to advertise to (and I mean largest demographies, as Facebook pretty much has users from all demographics).
The problem is that you're basically limited to brand advertising with no way to target users who search for specific keyword, like with Google. This makes Facebook advertising much less valuable. Of course, they could help this by trying to lower advertising prices.. but it seems like it works for them anyway, so why would they do that.
The funny thing is that Facebook has much better "advertising" feature that is free, fanpages.
The problem isn't so much Facebook users (this includes pretty much everyone), but too high prices for non-targeted users. Yes, you can target by age and gender and such, but unlike with Google and AdWords you cannot target to specific interests or queries. Yet Facebook charges almost kind of prices per click than Google does.
I was actually surprised when I was looking at the prices the first time. I had the idea that I could advertise and get people much more cheaper from Facebook. But the prices are ridiculous. It's much better to use AdWords or Bing's AdCenter for some actual targeted queries if the price is going to be the same.
and the overall instability of their leaders
Wait, what? You honestly that for example Kim Jong-il was instable person? Maybe, just maybe he did what he needed to do when being attacked practically every other country than China on the planet.
Oh, I see. We have an armchair general here.
Could you please citate any real warmongering that China or Russia have done? My understanding is that they have only cared about their internal politics. Only when threat from the US has arisen they have had the need to answer.
For me, both China and Russia seem much more peaceful than US.
Sorry, but no. The skill level required between virtual football and real life football is significantly different. Same is true for the entertainment value of watching them. The two just doesn't compare. It was already painful to take turns with friend when gaming back in the 90's when playing together, why the hell would I just want to watch now?