Congrats for correctly identifying Apple's legal strategy, as well as that of 499 other members of the Fortune 500. Any more amazing revelations you'd like to share with us?
So you are saying it is entirely unreasonable to try to come up with a fair monetary value for the license value of these patents, because that is not the convention thus far.
It is exactly the same. Both companies are using the patent / legal system to their maximal advantage. (i.e. making the most revenue)
By the way, you are both cherry picking and over-simplifying the exact patent dispute details of the legal cases at hand. Lowers the credibility of your post even further.
That's using one market where Google has dominance and using it to affect another market. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble because of that. Google isn't likely to do that.
There are already whispers that US anti-trust agencies are examing Google's present market behavior.
I predict Google will let it get dragged out and will make it as painful as possible for Apple.
I predict that Google is seeking to maximize its revenue opportunities here, same as any corporation would do.
Meanwhile, Google will continue its assault on Carriers' Customer Expectations by offering great prices on non-subsidized, unlocked devices. Google is changing some games. They won't need to fight too hard to defeat Apple. They just need to wear them out... and they can.
Most Android phones being sold now are using standard carrier plans and subsidizing.
There is an Army of Android device makers just WAITING for the opportunity to make the next Google Nexus devices. As we just saw, ASUS was having some trouble until it made the Nexus 7. Will HTC who is on the brink of death receive the next breath of life from Google? Possibly.
At some point, Google will need to justify that $8 billion spent on Motorola Mobility, especially as their revenue growth continues to slow.
The point is that "open" and "free" (as in freedom) devices will quickly win the people over. They KNOW they are being tethered to Apple's way. They will soon lose out.
I'm pretty confident that most people decide on a phone by comparing actual features and prices. But I'm no credentialed expert on the matter.
Apple's a big powerful badass. But Google is like a giant zen buddhist statue. It ain't going anywhere.
Funny, I thought the two of them were both Fortune 500 corporations.
We are likely to start seeing significant gender and cultural divergence about what is a good screen size for a phone. Calling someone stupid for prefering a smaller screen size is pretty low.
Performance is defined just as much by software optimization and design as it is by the hardware. Funny that Fandroids forget that fact...
I think Apple is still plenty relevant, just by looking at Slashdot posts.
I don't have a clue what "abusive assholes" is supposed to mean. I'm certain, though, that your usage of it is so incredibly subjective as to not bother with inquiry.
I think I'll assume that one fortune 500 company behaves similar to another, and base my phone purchases by comparing the features, like any rational consumer would.
And why shouldn't they be arseholes? The judge in this case issued a non-conventional, douchey penalty, worthy of ridicule by any actual un-biased observers. I am not saying that Apple didn't deserve to lose the case, just that this particular penalty is utterly stupid.
If it were me, I would have made an even worse sarcasm-laden post to satisfy the terms of the penalty.
Yet your troll of a comment makes it sound like only "apologists" can justify Apple's response. I say, only apologists like you can make it sound like this judge's order is remotely fair, as a given.
And why can't you have it both ways? It's to Google's advantage to link to other's content "piecewise" when that content is superior to what Google offers (or if that is the impression of most internet users anyways). In such case, Google may get as much ad revenue as the linked-to site.
And it's clearly also to Google's advantage to make one or two brief links to their own service, "top-level" at the same time. i.e. "Here's what you were probably looking for (please glance at our ads before clicking on it) but you might also consider trying GSomething later on too, to get a similar experience"
It seems odd to me that the bulk of the money in the NEWS business would go to news aggregators, as opposed to those who are reporting the news in the first place. I think we would get higher quality news, including more exposes, etc. if we could figure out how to fix this oddity.
They can exist as modules under a single lightweight application UI, actively loaded and unloaded as necessary. That kind of SW design would answer most people's criticisms surrounding "bloat".
At the very least the current hodgepodge UI needs to die and be reborn.
Slashdot Mirror
.. except every big company in every industry follows this strategy. It's called maximizing your revenues and profits.
And how would Google put Apple to the screws, other than going through a long drawn out lawsuit?
Logic fail...
I don't think the Fandroids are capable of such honest economic reasoning...
Congrats for correctly identifying Apple's legal strategy, as well as that of 499 other members of the Fortune 500. Any more amazing revelations you'd like to share with us?
It is still going to end this way. Just takes time is all.
So you are saying it is entirely unreasonable to try to come up with a fair monetary value for the license value of these patents, because that is not the convention thus far.
... says the AC...
It is exactly the same. Both companies are using the patent / legal system to their maximal advantage. (i.e. making the most revenue)
By the way, you are both cherry picking and over-simplifying the exact patent dispute details of the legal cases at hand. Lowers the credibility of your post even further.
It was rabid fanboyism. I destroyed it pretty thoroughly in my own response to it a second ago.
That's using one market where Google has dominance and using it to affect another market. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble because of that. Google isn't likely to do that.
There are already whispers that US anti-trust agencies are examing Google's present market behavior.
I predict Google will let it get dragged out and will make it as painful as possible for Apple.
I predict that Google is seeking to maximize its revenue opportunities here, same as any corporation would do.
Meanwhile, Google will continue its assault on Carriers' Customer Expectations by offering great prices on non-subsidized, unlocked devices. Google is changing some games. They won't need to fight too hard to defeat Apple. They just need to wear them out... and they can.
Most Android phones being sold now are using standard carrier plans and subsidizing.
There is an Army of Android device makers just WAITING for the opportunity to make the next Google Nexus devices. As we just saw, ASUS was having some trouble until it made the Nexus 7. Will HTC who is on the brink of death receive the next breath of life from Google? Possibly.
At some point, Google will need to justify that $8 billion spent on Motorola Mobility, especially as their revenue growth continues to slow.
The point is that "open" and "free" (as in freedom) devices will quickly win the people over. They KNOW they are being tethered to Apple's way. They will soon lose out.
I'm pretty confident that most people decide on a phone by comparing actual features and prices. But I'm no credentialed expert on the matter.
Apple's a big powerful badass. But Google is like a giant zen buddhist statue. It ain't going anywhere.
Funny, I thought the two of them were both Fortune 500 corporations.
LTE has very good latency, which is probably a more important advantage over HSPA+ than peak bandwidth.
We are likely to start seeing significant gender and cultural divergence about what is a good screen size for a phone. Calling someone stupid for prefering a smaller screen size is pretty low.
Performance is defined just as much by software optimization and design as it is by the hardware. Funny that Fandroids forget that fact...
I think Apple is still plenty relevant, just by looking at Slashdot posts.
LTE obviously has higher peak bandwidth, but that isn't a big deal for most people. Given low datacaps by carriers especially.
HOWEVER, LTE has much better latency as well. And that matters a lot to me, personally.
I disagree with "MS... high margin on OS". If you think that, then you do not understand Microsoft's business model.
I don't have a clue what "abusive assholes" is supposed to mean. I'm certain, though, that your usage of it is so incredibly subjective as to not bother with inquiry.
I think I'll assume that one fortune 500 company behaves similar to another, and base my phone purchases by comparing the features, like any rational consumer would.
And why shouldn't they be arseholes? The judge in this case issued a non-conventional, douchey penalty, worthy of ridicule by any actual un-biased observers. I am not saying that Apple didn't deserve to lose the case, just that this particular penalty is utterly stupid.
If it were me, I would have made an even worse sarcasm-laden post to satisfy the terms of the penalty.
Yet your troll of a comment makes it sound like only "apologists" can justify Apple's response. I say, only apologists like you can make it sound like this judge's order is remotely fair, as a given.
How can this post possibly be modded insightful? It is 100% a troll.
And why can't you have it both ways? It's to Google's advantage to link to other's content "piecewise" when that content is superior to what Google offers (or if that is the impression of most internet users anyways). In such case, Google may get as much ad revenue as the linked-to site.
And it's clearly also to Google's advantage to make one or two brief links to their own service, "top-level" at the same time. i.e. "Here's what you were probably looking for (please glance at our ads before clicking on it) but you might also consider trying GSomething later on too, to get a similar experience"
search.yahoo.com has been around for many years now...
The specs / price on the iMacs are better than I would have guessed, and the form factor is impressive as well. Return of the all-in-one PC?
Popularity != Quality
I disagree.
It seems odd to me that the bulk of the money in the NEWS business would go to news aggregators, as opposed to those who are reporting the news in the first place. I think we would get higher quality news, including more exposes, etc. if we could figure out how to fix this oddity.
Apple clickbait is the only thing keeping slashdot threads going these days. (Well, that and anything relating to "outrageous" copyright enforcement.)
They can exist as modules under a single lightweight application UI, actively loaded and unloaded as necessary. That kind of SW design would answer most people's criticisms surrounding "bloat".
At the very least the current hodgepodge UI needs to die and be reborn.
Strange that Apple wouldn't release the iTunes overhaul in conjunction with these iPods. That overhaul is well overdue, more than any iPod refresh...