Edit: Bah, looks like I messed up the quotes. My text is indented.
iPhone 5 comes with:
* Apple Maps and access to Google Maps, with a large number of options for other map apps (that can can be downloaded), both free and paid.
You're using Apple Maps as a selling feature? Meanwhile, Androids come with Google Maps out of the box, as well as Google Navigation, which supports voice instructions, and there are a similarly large number of other map/navigation apps available for Android.
While your point is that IOS can hold its own against Android, it's a bit silly to use Apple Maps as the first point of comparison....
Absolutely. For the 99.5% of times when it's not "epically failing" (and being corrected), it works very well. The whole "zomg look how bad it is, you'll end up in a lake!" stuff is amusing, but ultimately overblown. And, as I pointed out right after it, I noted that Google Maps is also available on iOS 6, along with many other apps to choose from if you think Apple Maps will "epically fail". For the majority of people, however, it is
* Uses a USB charger, charges off anything with a USB port (note that USB is not proprietary), and a micro-USB adapter is also available so you can charge it off a Galaxy SIII charger if you really want.
USB isn't proprietary, but the connector at the other end of the cable is. If your cable is damaged or lost, you need to buy a replacement cable from Apple, and pay for the privilege. If you lose or damage the cable for any Android phone I've ever used, you can use *any* MicroUSB cable from any other device you own, or can buy one very cheaply from any number of people selling them.
I didn't address the Lightning connector (or the previous incarnation, the 30 pin dock connector), merely that the GP said that Apple's charger was proprietary and that (I quote) "not compatible with any other brand", when it's obvious to anyone who has actually used an iPhone that it will charge off all sorts of third party branded chargers, and that you can charge other phones and devices off an Apple charger if you like since it has a USB port on it. It's no accident that the "non-phone" end of the cable is a USB plug, and that the cord is removable from the charger.
* Doesn't have removable memory card, no, but this has allegedly been a missing "killer feature" from every iOS device ever sold, and doesn't seem to be slowing down sales.
Some Android phones don't have removable memory cards. Mine does. It's very useful. I've used the same MicroSD card across 3 phones now, and have not needed to recopy the data to each new phone. Similarly, I haven't lost any of the settings or high scores from my games/apps, and several of my games have installed completely to the SD card, so they don't need to be reinstalled/downloaded on a new phone, either.
Yes, I mentioned that this is one of the few genuine differences, and that for some people a removable SD card is a killer feature. It simply bears repeating that the supposed "killer feature" is clearly not all that important to the vast majority of iPhone users. Personally I think it is more of missing killer feature on the iPad, where extra removable storage would be very welcome for the sorts of things it is used for - movies and games on the go.
* No USB Mass Storage Mode either, but files can be moved on and off it as necessary, also supports cloud storage (iCloud, Dropbox etc).
Call me next time you need to sync 32GB of data through iCloud to your new phone. We'll compare how long it takes against how long it takes me to remove my MicroSD card and put it in the new phone, shall we? We'll also compare how much that costs on your 3G data plan....
This is good for the whole industry! Hopefully Apple won't rest on it's laurels and will improve their OS and produce a new iPhone with a bigger screen (The S3's main advantage)
I think Apple "innovated" by releasing the iPhone 5 in Q4.
I think it went something like this at Apple HQ:
"Oh no, look at these numbers! The Galaxy SIII is outselling the iPhone 4S! What shall we do?"
"Well, we could release the iPhone 5 for sale as we planned, since people are not buying the 4S any more because they know it's coming soon."
"Good idea! Start excavations for an extension to the vault immediately!"
Galaxy S III comes with built-in maps and memory-card support. Apple don't. Also, Apple uses a proprietary charger that is not compatible with any other brand, making this aspect of the S III better as well. Also, the S III can be used as a harddrive for files without any need for additional drivers.
iPhone 5 comes with:
* Apple Maps and access to Google Maps, with a large number of options for other map apps (that can can be downloaded), both free and paid.
* Uses a USB charger, charges off anything with a USB port (note that USB is not proprietary), and a micro-USB adapter is also available so you can charge it off a Galaxy SIII charger if you really want.
* Doesn't have removable memory card, no, but this has allegedly been a missing "killer feature" from every iOS device ever sold, and doesn't seem to be slowing down sales.
* No USB Mass Storage Mode either, but files can be moved on and off it as necessary, also supports cloud storage (iCloud, Dropbox etc).
So, other than the lack of mass storage mode and removable memory card, it holds up pretty well.
I think it also probably sold better in Q3 because it was actually available for sale. The iPhone 5 did not come out until Q4 (hence the lower sales numbers for the 4S, which is used to compare).
Still, the Galaxy SIII is a great phone - I know several friends who have one and it's every bit as good as the 4S. I prefer the iPhone 5 over it, however, purely down to size considerations (DISCLAIMER: I do not own an iPhone 5). The size and weight of the 5 just feels better in the hand. (AGAIN, DISCLAIMER: personal preference, YMMV).
So, your point is that if you exclude most iOS devices, Apple has a monopoly on one segment of portable devices relevant to Google Maps (and even then, nowhere near the level of MS in the Windows antitrust suit days)?
My point was only that Apple have a monopoly in the tablet market and in my opinion (for what that matters) are abusing their dominance to unfairly deny their customers the ability to choose a competing mapping application. This appears to me to be anticompetitive, much more so even than Microsoft, who, while bundling their browser with Windows, never went as far as actively preventing the installation of a competing browser.
But even with tablets only they do not hold a monopoly. As of 3Q11 they had about 65% of the tablet market, and as of 3Q12 they now hold 50%.
Apple also aren't "actively preventing the installation of [google maps]" - someone at Google is saying that they might, in a wild flair of speculation. It's certainly an odd position to take when the CEO of Apple recommends that iOS6 customers use Google Maps (among other options) if they are disappointed with the current state of Apple's own maps app in a very public apology letter over the "scandal".
I find it hard to see how that is anticompetitive, especially when there is nothing stopping you using Google Maps on iOS6 at all right now. This is just the Youtube thing all over again - misinformed Apple bashing.
Let's at the very, very least wait until Google submits the app for approval before we start bashing Apple as "anticompetitive" for not allowing it on the store.
So, your point is that if you exclude most iOS devices, Apple has a monopoly on one segment of portable devices relevant to Google Maps (and even then, nowhere near the level of MS in the Windows antitrust suit days)?
How about devices using iOS? I think this is a great analogy since Microsoft got smacked for Windows with internet browsers(basically an app with the operating system), and Apple could potentially get smacked for iOS with mapping applications(again, an app with an operating system).
Well, that's the same as saying "Ford has a monopoly on cars branded 'Ford'" or "Microsoft has a monopoly on XBox Live".
Apple cannot be smacked for iOS with mapping applications because iOS is not in a monopoly position. It only runs on Apple products, but that is not the same thing. The consumer has a choice of other smartphones.
Windows in the 90s was a special case, since it held a monopoly position in the OS market. Yes, there were other options (like OS/2) but they were not practical competitors to the Windows ecosystem in the same way that Android is to iOS now.
Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.
Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?
If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.
Well you can feel sorry for me too, as I also cannot see how Microsoft getting fined for pre-loading their web browser in their products while Apple is getting away with not only pre-loading their products with their mapping software but actively preventing you from being able to choose an alternative. If this behaviour is not anti-competitive I don't know what is. Are you arguing that because they produce the hardware they somehow have the right to maintain an unprecedented stranglehold over what the customers can do with said devices?
No, I'm arguing that Microsoft holding a monopoly position in the OS market and *then* bundling a browser to kill Netscape on Windows was the problem.
Had Microsoft not had a monopoly in the OS space then bundling IE and killing off Netscape would have been a dick move, but perfectly legal and fine.
If Apple decides to reject the Google Maps app then it will be totally legal and fine - they absolutely do not hold a monopoly in smartphones and/or tablets - whether it is a smart move, or a dick move is entirely separate. What it will be is legal, however.
"Until then it's just one store complaining that another store might not want to sell its product" This isn't one store it is an entire computing platform. They are not nearly the same species as a store. There can be no competing store on iOS, it is a locked in platform/ecosystem. With so much tied up/in to the platform the impact is very significant when this sort of self serving behavior promotes itself and hurts competition.
How is it any different to the current situation in the game console market?
"Sony insider says Sony PSN app unlikely to be approved for XBox Live, look how evil Microsoft are!! zomg!"
Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.
Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?
If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.
They can choose what to put on their store with no penalty from any "antitrust" position. In the same way that Walmart can choose not to sell Bob's Apple Pies if it wants to, even though it sells apple pies from other manufacturers.
If you don't like that, there are other stores that will happily sell you Bob's Apple Pies.
FUCK them over with a nice anti-trust lawsuit. Seems like a clear cut case if I've ever seen one.
On what grounds?
What "clear cut" monopoly position are they abusing?
Until then it's just one store complaining that another store might not want to sell its product, but it doesn't know for sure but assumes it will say no.
One of the things you're not allowed to do with a monopoly, is using the power of it to gain a monopoly in a different market. Apple is stepping dangerously close to this any time they disallow an app for competing with iOS built in services/Apple apps. Especially if they didn't offer that app/service before. It's just like Microsoft's Internet Explorer bundling, except MS at least allowed you to install competing products (if not removing their own).
(And yes, I know the standard argument, that Apple doesn't have a monopoly because other touchscreen phones sell better in aggregate. But this doesn't hold because it's not clear that the touchscreen phone should be the relevant unit for monopoly. If I control the world's fish supply, I can't just claim it's not a monopoly because people eat things other than fish. A monopoly in a limited sphere is still a monopoly.)
So what is your "unit of monopoly" in this case?
Apple phones? Well, duh, Apple has a "monopoly" on those, but that's just moronic.
Smartphones? Apple does not have a monopoly here and never has. The best they can do is about 50% which is so far from a monopoly anyone looking at it seriously will laugh at you.
Mobile phones as a whole? See above, but with an even smaller percentage.
I'm not seeing what "monopoly unit" that you seem to want to select to result in *only* Apple being in a monopoly position. Maybe you can spell it out for us?
There are no "gentleman's agreements" - these are contracts covering multiple million dollar amounts. There's no such thing as a gentleman's agreement when that sort of money is involved.
Wow, the Apple hate is strong in this one. Have you actually used a 5? I'm guessing... no.
Samsung's handsets are at the very minimum a direct equal to the iPhone line as a whole, and that's the point of the argument. The both cost a similar amount to make, they are all high quality (given the usual caveats of mass market consumer electronics), and sell for a similar amount to the consumer.
The GPP's post was incredulous that Apple would charge "$300-500" for something that is "clearly" not worth that much, when simply looking at the BoM tells you otherwise (not even considering build quality). The BoM for Samsung's phones is similar, and who'd have thought it - the end user cost is also! Conspiracy!
>The "taking" of the FRAND patent is balanced by the fact that Apple are *paying* for its use.
When did that happen? Apple only offered to pay $1 going forward. So, again, when did apple pay?
The point of the suit is over the royalties. Apple would have paid already (long ago) had a price actually been agreed on. I guess they are figuring that Motorola dragging its feet in negotiations is worth a little discount (note: I do not agree, Apple needs to pay what it owes).
The point is that its not somehow "unfair" or "taking without contributing" if they pay cash an not in a cross licencing deal.
Actually, given that they are FRAND patents, Apple should pay (by the rules stipulated in the FRAND terms) the same rate that everyone else paid for those patents. No more, no less.
Whatever that figure is, that is what Apple should pay.
So, 2.25% then.
Because that is the same rate being charged to other companies including Microsoft. The only difference between MS and Samsung is that Samsung and Motorola have a reciprocal licensing agreement which makes up the value of the 2.25%.
If that is the deal for everyone, then yes. That's the amount. It seems very high for a small segment of the pool, but perhaps they can argue it is actually that high.
The iPhone 4s cost $187.51 in bill of materials - let's be generous and round it up to $200 per device including assembly. AT&T are believed to pay $600 per unit.
Tell me again how Apple isn't overpriced?
Log in, buddy. You forgot! Careless.
The Galaxy SIII has a similar bill of materials, yet costs approximately $500-600 unlocked (as does the iPhone). Tell me again how Samsung are overpriced.
As is their right. They have no obligation to cross licence, merely to pay what everyone else paid as a dollar amount
They can't pay the same as everyone else in dollar amount, since everyone else paid partly in cash, and partly by licensing their own patents. So it basically hinges on how much those patents that other companies have licensed out to Moto in previous deals were worth. Apple is basically claiming that it's $1 (and even less than that, if you consider that they refuse to pay up for past infringement). I don't see how this is going to fly.
Well yes, and they have prior on this - the Apple/Nokia case was all about exactly this issue. I'm not saying that I think Apple's $1 figure is fair - I honestly have no idea what the actual figure is - just that I'm addressing the Apple haters' arguments that it's somehow "unfair" of Apple to want to pay cash and "not give anything back", when that's not the point of the FRAND system at all.
They have no obligation to cross licence, merely to pay what everyone else paid as a dollar amount, or in chickens or barrels of grain to the same value, or anything else you can barter with.
Question for you. Is the value of a cross-licensed patent equal to $0? Because otherwise, you would need to factor in the value of cross-licensed patents when determining the FRAND rate.
No, the value is not $0, but it is often hard to define exactly what it is. That was the whole argument in the Apple/Nokia case - Apple was using Nokia patents covered by FRAND terms, and Nokia wanted certain patents in exchange for that, but neither side could agree on the value of those patents (Nokia obviously saying low, Apple saying high and that it meant Nokia was thus asking too much in breach of their FRAND terms).
You can trade a FRAND for a FRAND, assuming both sides have one, but they do absolutely have value. Otherwise it would not be possible for a third party with no other IP to buy in. You can pay entirely cash if you want (although very few companies do, obviously).
I like how you think that Apple should be able to reap all of the benefits of FRAND patent pools without contributing to the pools like all other participants. There's give-and-take in every deal like this, and Apple only wants to participate in the taking part. And day in and day out, you post here to defend them like a good little white knight.
--Jeremy
That is exactly why FRAND patent pools exist - users of those patents do not need to "contribute" other than to pay for the use of the patents. The very reason the FRAND system was set up was to allow for global standards like Wifi and cellular communication (among others) to exist. Those who develop the technology and put money into the R&D get to recoup the cost of that investment (and more) by ensuring they have a patent that everyone *must* use, but the price for inclusion into the pool is that it be covered under FRAND terms.
Apple is not "reaping the benefits" of those patents - they are paying to use them, in exactly the same way they pay other vendors to make LCD screens for them, or CPUs, or chunks of aluminium that become cases.
You are under no obligation whatsoever to contribute to a FRAND pool (in fact, you cannot unless it is open for modification or ratification - the pools are set by a standards body, so Apple cannot "contribute" to a closed pool) - they merely have the option to cross licence other (non FRAND) patents as payment for the use of those covered by FRAND, but they are not obligated to do so. They can pay cash if they want. Just because most companies *do* cross licence, does not mean that Apple has to, and the "Fair and Non-Discriminatory" part of the FRAND terms exist for exactly that reason - to prevent abuse of the patents to force competitors to do things they do not want to do because you hold the keys to something you absolutely need to make a working device. The price for a guaranteed stream of customers using your patent in a standard is that you have to licence it fairly to anyone who wants to use it (whether they have patents they are willing to share with you or not).
The "taking" of the FRAND patent is balanced by the fact that Apple are *paying* for its use. Money can be exchanged for goods and/or services. They are only "taking" something in the same way that you "take" a loaf of bread at the store, assuming you actually hand over money for it.
Still, you Apple haters come here day in, day out to distort the facts and wade in hypocrisy. What can you do, eh?
If that is what everyone else paid, then yes, distilled into a cash figure (Apple is not obligated to cross licence - it can pay the cash equivalent).
So, given that Apple believes that it can block all reasonable future mobile products from Motorola and basically cost them their entire business, the cash equivalent would be the entire potential future revenue of Motorola? Sounds kind of Fair and Reasonable.
Well, Apple could write that cheque right now. Hell, *I* could write that cheque right now.
...and Apple has already said they will not pay what everyone else pays.
Everyone else goes into a cross-liscence instead of paying actual money per device, Apple has already refused to do this.
As is their right. They have no obligation to cross licence, merely to pay what everyone else paid as a dollar amount, or in chickens or barrels of grain to the same value, or anything else you can barter with.
What people seem to be thinking, however, is that because Apple doesn't want to cross licence they seem to believe that means they are "refusing" to licence the patents - they simply want to pay a different way, and given that they have 100 billion in cash sitting in the bank and they jealously guard their own IP, it's no surprise that they want to pay cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Edit: Bah, looks like I messed up the quotes. My text is indented.
iPhone 5 comes with:
* Apple Maps and access to Google Maps, with a large number of options for other map apps (that can can be downloaded), both free and paid.
You're using Apple Maps as a selling feature? Meanwhile, Androids come with Google Maps out of the box, as well as Google Navigation, which supports voice instructions, and there are a similarly large number of other map/navigation apps available for Android.
While your point is that IOS can hold its own against Android, it's a bit silly to use Apple Maps as the first point of comparison....
Absolutely. For the 99.5% of times when it's not "epically failing" (and being corrected), it works very well. The whole "zomg look how bad it is, you'll end up in a lake!" stuff is amusing, but ultimately overblown. And, as I pointed out right after it, I noted that Google Maps is also available on iOS 6, along with many other apps to choose from if you think Apple Maps will "epically fail". For the majority of people, however, it is
* Uses a USB charger, charges off anything with a USB port (note that USB is not proprietary), and a micro-USB adapter is also available so you can charge it off a Galaxy SIII charger if you really want.
USB isn't proprietary, but the connector at the other end of the cable is. If your cable is damaged or lost, you need to buy a replacement cable from Apple, and pay for the privilege. If you lose or damage the cable for any Android phone I've ever used, you can use *any* MicroUSB cable from any other device you own, or can buy one very cheaply from any number of people selling them.
I didn't address the Lightning connector (or the previous incarnation, the 30 pin dock connector), merely that the GP said that Apple's charger was proprietary and that (I quote) "not compatible with any other brand", when it's obvious to anyone who has actually used an iPhone that it will charge off all sorts of third party branded chargers, and that you can charge other phones and devices off an Apple charger if you like since it has a USB port on it. It's no accident that the "non-phone" end of the cable is a USB plug, and that the cord is removable from the charger.
* Doesn't have removable memory card, no, but this has allegedly been a missing "killer feature" from every iOS device ever sold, and doesn't seem to be slowing down sales.
Some Android phones don't have removable memory cards. Mine does. It's very useful. I've used the same MicroSD card across 3 phones now, and have not needed to recopy the data to each new phone. Similarly, I haven't lost any of the settings or high scores from my games/apps, and several of my games have installed completely to the SD card, so they don't need to be reinstalled/downloaded on a new phone, either.
Yes, I mentioned that this is one of the few genuine differences, and that for some people a removable SD card is a killer feature. It simply bears repeating that the supposed "killer feature" is clearly not all that important to the vast majority of iPhone users. Personally I think it is more of missing killer feature on the iPad, where extra removable storage would be very welcome for the sorts of things it is used for - movies and games on the go.
* No USB Mass Storage Mode either, but files can be moved on and off it as necessary, also supports cloud storage (iCloud, Dropbox etc).
Call me next time you need to sync 32GB of data through iCloud to your new phone. We'll compare how long it takes against how long it takes me to remove my MicroSD card and put it in the new phone, shall we? We'll also compare how much that costs on your 3G data plan....
Oh, di
This is good for the whole industry! Hopefully Apple won't rest on it's laurels and will improve their OS and produce a new iPhone with a bigger screen (The S3's main advantage)
I think Apple "innovated" by releasing the iPhone 5 in Q4.
I think it went something like this at Apple HQ:
"Oh no, look at these numbers! The Galaxy SIII is outselling the iPhone 4S! What shall we do?"
"Well, we could release the iPhone 5 for sale as we planned, since people are not buying the 4S any more because they know it's coming soon."
"Good idea! Start excavations for an extension to the vault immediately!"
Galaxy S III comes with built-in maps and memory-card support. Apple don't. Also, Apple uses a proprietary charger that is not compatible with any other brand, making this aspect of the S III better as well. Also, the S III can be used as a harddrive for files without any need for additional drivers.
iPhone 5 comes with:
* Apple Maps and access to Google Maps, with a large number of options for other map apps (that can can be downloaded), both free and paid.
* Uses a USB charger, charges off anything with a USB port (note that USB is not proprietary), and a micro-USB adapter is also available so you can charge it off a Galaxy SIII charger if you really want.
* Doesn't have removable memory card, no, but this has allegedly been a missing "killer feature" from every iOS device ever sold, and doesn't seem to be slowing down sales.
* No USB Mass Storage Mode either, but files can be moved on and off it as necessary, also supports cloud storage (iCloud, Dropbox etc).
So, other than the lack of mass storage mode and removable memory card, it holds up pretty well.
I think it also probably sold better in Q3 because it was actually available for sale. The iPhone 5 did not come out until Q4 (hence the lower sales numbers for the 4S, which is used to compare).
Still, the Galaxy SIII is a great phone - I know several friends who have one and it's every bit as good as the 4S. I prefer the iPhone 5 over it, however, purely down to size considerations (DISCLAIMER: I do not own an iPhone 5). The size and weight of the 5 just feels better in the hand. (AGAIN, DISCLAIMER: personal preference, YMMV).
So, your point is that if you exclude most iOS devices, Apple has a monopoly on one segment of portable devices relevant to Google Maps (and even then, nowhere near the level of MS in the Windows antitrust suit days)?
My point was only that Apple have a monopoly in the tablet market and in my opinion (for what that matters) are abusing their dominance to unfairly deny their customers the ability to choose a competing mapping application. This appears to me to be anticompetitive, much more so even than Microsoft, who, while bundling their browser with Windows, never went as far as actively preventing the installation of a competing browser.
But even with tablets only they do not hold a monopoly. As of 3Q11 they had about 65% of the tablet market, and as of 3Q12 they now hold 50%.
Apple also aren't "actively preventing the installation of [google maps]" - someone at Google is saying that they might, in a wild flair of speculation. It's certainly an odd position to take when the CEO of Apple recommends that iOS6 customers use Google Maps (among other options) if they are disappointed with the current state of Apple's own maps app in a very public apology letter over the "scandal".
I find it hard to see how that is anticompetitive, especially when there is nothing stopping you using Google Maps on iOS6 at all right now. This is just the Youtube thing all over again - misinformed Apple bashing.
Let's at the very, very least wait until Google submits the app for approval before we start bashing Apple as "anticompetitive" for not allowing it on the store.
So, your point is that if you exclude most iOS devices, Apple has a monopoly on one segment of portable devices relevant to Google Maps (and even then, nowhere near the level of MS in the Windows antitrust suit days)?
How about devices using iOS? I think this is a great analogy since Microsoft got smacked for Windows with internet browsers(basically an app with the operating system), and Apple could potentially get smacked for iOS with mapping applications(again, an app with an operating system).
Well, that's the same as saying "Ford has a monopoly on cars branded 'Ford'" or "Microsoft has a monopoly on XBox Live".
Apple cannot be smacked for iOS with mapping applications because iOS is not in a monopoly position. It only runs on Apple products, but that is not the same thing. The consumer has a choice of other smartphones.
Windows in the 90s was a special case, since it held a monopoly position in the OS market. Yes, there were other options (like OS/2) but they were not practical competitors to the Windows ecosystem in the same way that Android is to iOS now.
Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.
Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?
If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.
Well you can feel sorry for me too, as I also cannot see how Microsoft getting fined for pre-loading their web browser in their products while Apple is getting away with not only pre-loading their products with their mapping software but actively preventing you from being able to choose an alternative. If this behaviour is not anti-competitive I don't know what is. Are you arguing that because they produce the hardware they somehow have the right to maintain an unprecedented stranglehold over what the customers can do with said devices?
No, I'm arguing that Microsoft holding a monopoly position in the OS market and *then* bundling a browser to kill Netscape on Windows was the problem.
Had Microsoft not had a monopoly in the OS space then bundling IE and killing off Netscape would have been a dick move, but perfectly legal and fine.
If Apple decides to reject the Google Maps app then it will be totally legal and fine - they absolutely do not hold a monopoly in smartphones and/or tablets - whether it is a smart move, or a dick move is entirely separate. What it will be is legal, however.
"Until then it's just one store complaining that another store might not want to sell its product" This isn't one store it is an entire computing platform. They are not nearly the same species as a store. There can be no competing store on iOS, it is a locked in platform/ecosystem. With so much tied up/in to the platform the impact is very significant when this sort of self serving behavior promotes itself and hurts competition.
How is it any different to the current situation in the game console market?
"Sony insider says Sony PSN app unlikely to be approved for XBox Live, look how evil Microsoft are!! zomg!"
2560x1600 displays
Dell will happily sell you a 2560x1600 display, as will many other vendors. All of them made by the same source of course.
Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.
Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?
If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.
Why?
They can choose what to put on their store with no penalty from any "antitrust" position. In the same way that Walmart can choose not to sell Bob's Apple Pies if it wants to, even though it sells apple pies from other manufacturers.
If you don't like that, there are other stores that will happily sell you Bob's Apple Pies.
FUCK them over with a nice anti-trust lawsuit. Seems like a clear cut case if I've ever seen one.
On what grounds?
What "clear cut" monopoly position are they abusing?
Until then it's just one store complaining that another store might not want to sell its product, but it doesn't know for sure but assumes it will say no.
One of the things you're not allowed to do with a monopoly, is using the power of it to gain a monopoly in a different market. Apple is stepping dangerously close to this any time they disallow an app for competing with iOS built in services/Apple apps. Especially if they didn't offer that app/service before. It's just like Microsoft's Internet Explorer bundling, except MS at least allowed you to install competing products (if not removing their own).
(And yes, I know the standard argument, that Apple doesn't have a monopoly because other touchscreen phones sell better in aggregate. But this doesn't hold because it's not clear that the touchscreen phone should be the relevant unit for monopoly. If I control the world's fish supply, I can't just claim it's not a monopoly because people eat things other than fish. A monopoly in a limited sphere is still a monopoly.)
So what is your "unit of monopoly" in this case?
Apple phones? Well, duh, Apple has a "monopoly" on those, but that's just moronic.
Smartphones? Apple does not have a monopoly here and never has. The best they can do is about 50% which is so far from a monopoly anyone looking at it seriously will laugh at you.
Mobile phones as a whole? See above, but with an even smaller percentage.
I'm not seeing what "monopoly unit" that you seem to want to select to result in *only* Apple being in a monopoly position. Maybe you can spell it out for us?
There are no "gentleman's agreements" - these are contracts covering multiple million dollar amounts. There's no such thing as a gentleman's agreement when that sort of money is involved.
Seriously? You're going with that?
Wow, the Apple hate is strong in this one. Have you actually used a 5? I'm guessing... no.
Samsung's handsets are at the very minimum a direct equal to the iPhone line as a whole, and that's the point of the argument. The both cost a similar amount to make, they are all high quality (given the usual caveats of mass market consumer electronics), and sell for a similar amount to the consumer.
The GPP's post was incredulous that Apple would charge "$300-500" for something that is "clearly" not worth that much, when simply looking at the BoM tells you otherwise (not even considering build quality). The BoM for Samsung's phones is similar, and who'd have thought it - the end user cost is also! Conspiracy!
>The "taking" of the FRAND patent is balanced by the fact that Apple are *paying* for its use.
When did that happen? Apple only offered to pay $1 going forward. So, again, when did apple pay?
The point of the suit is over the royalties. Apple would have paid already (long ago) had a price actually been agreed on. I guess they are figuring that Motorola dragging its feet in negotiations is worth a little discount (note: I do not agree, Apple needs to pay what it owes).
The point is that its not somehow "unfair" or "taking without contributing" if they pay cash an not in a cross licencing deal.
Actually, given that they are FRAND patents, Apple should pay (by the rules stipulated in the FRAND terms) the same rate that everyone else paid for those patents. No more, no less.
Whatever that figure is, that is what Apple should pay.
So, 2.25% then.
Because that is the same rate being charged to other companies including Microsoft. The only difference between MS and Samsung is that Samsung and Motorola have a reciprocal licensing agreement which makes up the value of the 2.25%.
If that is the deal for everyone, then yes. That's the amount. It seems very high for a small segment of the pool, but perhaps they can argue it is actually that high.
The iPhone 4s cost $187.51 in bill of materials - let's be generous and round it up to $200 per device including assembly. AT&T are believed to pay $600 per unit.
Tell me again how Apple isn't overpriced?
Log in, buddy. You forgot! Careless.
The Galaxy SIII has a similar bill of materials, yet costs approximately $500-600 unlocked (as does the iPhone). Tell me again how Samsung are overpriced.
As is their right. They have no obligation to cross licence, merely to pay what everyone else paid as a dollar amount
They can't pay the same as everyone else in dollar amount, since everyone else paid partly in cash, and partly by licensing their own patents. So it basically hinges on how much those patents that other companies have licensed out to Moto in previous deals were worth. Apple is basically claiming that it's $1 (and even less than that, if you consider that they refuse to pay up for past infringement). I don't see how this is going to fly.
Well yes, and they have prior on this - the Apple/Nokia case was all about exactly this issue. I'm not saying that I think Apple's $1 figure is fair - I honestly have no idea what the actual figure is - just that I'm addressing the Apple haters' arguments that it's somehow "unfair" of Apple to want to pay cash and "not give anything back", when that's not the point of the FRAND system at all.
They have no obligation to cross licence, merely to pay what everyone else paid as a dollar amount, or in chickens or barrels of grain to the same value, or anything else you can barter with.
Question for you. Is the value of a cross-licensed patent equal to $0? Because otherwise, you would need to factor in the value of cross-licensed patents when determining the FRAND rate.
No, the value is not $0, but it is often hard to define exactly what it is. That was the whole argument in the Apple/Nokia case - Apple was using Nokia patents covered by FRAND terms, and Nokia wanted certain patents in exchange for that, but neither side could agree on the value of those patents (Nokia obviously saying low, Apple saying high and that it meant Nokia was thus asking too much in breach of their FRAND terms).
You can trade a FRAND for a FRAND, assuming both sides have one, but they do absolutely have value. Otherwise it would not be possible for a third party with no other IP to buy in. You can pay entirely cash if you want (although very few companies do, obviously).
I like how you think that Apple should be able to reap all of the benefits of FRAND patent pools without contributing to the pools like all other participants. There's give-and-take in every deal like this, and Apple only wants to participate in the taking part. And day in and day out, you post here to defend them like a good little white knight.
--Jeremy
That is exactly why FRAND patent pools exist - users of those patents do not need to "contribute" other than to pay for the use of the patents. The very reason the FRAND system was set up was to allow for global standards like Wifi and cellular communication (among others) to exist. Those who develop the technology and put money into the R&D get to recoup the cost of that investment (and more) by ensuring they have a patent that everyone *must* use, but the price for inclusion into the pool is that it be covered under FRAND terms.
Apple is not "reaping the benefits" of those patents - they are paying to use them, in exactly the same way they pay other vendors to make LCD screens for them, or CPUs, or chunks of aluminium that become cases.
You are under no obligation whatsoever to contribute to a FRAND pool (in fact, you cannot unless it is open for modification or ratification - the pools are set by a standards body, so Apple cannot "contribute" to a closed pool) - they merely have the option to cross licence other (non FRAND) patents as payment for the use of those covered by FRAND, but they are not obligated to do so. They can pay cash if they want. Just because most companies *do* cross licence, does not mean that Apple has to, and the "Fair and Non-Discriminatory" part of the FRAND terms exist for exactly that reason - to prevent abuse of the patents to force competitors to do things they do not want to do because you hold the keys to something you absolutely need to make a working device. The price for a guaranteed stream of customers using your patent in a standard is that you have to licence it fairly to anyone who wants to use it (whether they have patents they are willing to share with you or not).
The "taking" of the FRAND patent is balanced by the fact that Apple are *paying* for its use. Money can be exchanged for goods and/or services. They are only "taking" something in the same way that you "take" a loaf of bread at the store, assuming you actually hand over money for it.
Still, you Apple haters come here day in, day out to distort the facts and wade in hypocrisy. What can you do, eh?
If that is what everyone else paid, then yes, distilled into a cash figure (Apple is not obligated to cross licence - it can pay the cash equivalent).
So, given that Apple believes that it can block all reasonable future mobile products from Motorola and basically cost them their entire business, the cash equivalent would be the entire potential future revenue of Motorola? Sounds kind of Fair and Reasonable.
Well, Apple could write that cheque right now. Hell, *I* could write that cheque right now.
*ducks*
...and Apple has already said they will not pay what everyone else pays.
Everyone else goes into a cross-liscence instead of paying actual money per device, Apple has already refused to do this.
As is their right. They have no obligation to cross licence, merely to pay what everyone else paid as a dollar amount, or in chickens or barrels of grain to the same value, or anything else you can barter with.
What people seem to be thinking, however, is that because Apple doesn't want to cross licence they seem to believe that means they are "refusing" to licence the patents - they simply want to pay a different way, and given that they have 100 billion in cash sitting in the bank and they jealously guard their own IP, it's no surprise that they want to pay cash.
So 1% on all devices + cross licensing of all patents to all entities who license these patents?
If that is what everyone else paid, then yes, distilled into a cash figure (Apple is not obligated to cross licence - it can pay the cash equivalent).