9 ms·

Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others join forces to bring down Android

94 points by cryptoz 15y ago

rimantas 15y ago
> as Google was beat by a shadowy bidder > calling itself "Rockstar Bidco". Rockstar Bidco was competing against "Ranger". Can I now call "Ranger" (Google + Intel) shadowy too?
tomlin 15y ago
This is par for the course for RIM, Microsoft, so no surprises. I get the sense lately that Apple is unraveling. They're starting to make decisions based on fear, not evolution.
- JoeBracken 15y ago
  As Apple the hardware company continues to invest in their software ecosystem and begins to count on non-hardware revenue the threat from Google increases. I believe that Apple has proven that they are playing the long game while enjoying successes of the short game. Given what apple has done with just iTunes alone shows they are easily looking out 10 years and beyond. I don't think it's fear. In the battle of who's ecosystem a consumer will select for their desktop/laptop/mobile/web/music/video experience, snagging these patents could serve as a very nice speed-bump for Google. Every consumer who buys an iPhone or iPad over an Android device, is one more consumer that is more likely to commit to Apples ecosystem of software and services over Google's.
- matwood 15y ago
  Not sure if it's out of fear or just good business sense. When they entered the cell phone market they had nearly zero phone related patents. This opened them up to litigation and licensing issues around basic phone functionality where they have no leverage because they have no patents to cross license. After getting a taste of what it takes to play in the cell phone market they know they have to have cell phone related patents for leverage when setting up cross licensing deals.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- podperson 15y ago
  Yes, it's sad to watch Apple thrash around, hastily releasing half-assed new versions of Mac OS X and iOS while its competitors produce superior, polished products at their own pace. (That was sarcasm and ridicule, in case it wasn't clear.) I'd say the fact that Apple is simultaneously releasing the best stuff in all the categories it competes in, making huge profits, increasing or maintaining market share, and aggressively suing the heck out of everyone, while not having anything approaching a monopoly in any market except perhaps audio downloads is a pretty good sign (for Apple).
  - rospaya 15y ago
    John Gruber, is that you?
  - funkah 15y ago
    Just once, I'd like to see someone making "Apple is doomed" prognostications actually put their money where their mouth is and short the stock. That would be fun to see. People will just say anything when it comes to Apple. It's crazy.
    - pyre 15y ago
      A business can be in decline well before the stock price reflects that. Also, the stock market isn't a reasonable reflection of how stable a business will be into the future. If this was the case, then stock market crashes would be pure fiction.
      - kaffiene 15y ago
        Good point. Stock prices are absolute bullshit when it comes to telling you whether a company is good in real business terms. I used to work for a company in the Telco space when Telcos had a stock crash. Now, our company made 40% profit year on year and had done so for the seven preceding years, yet our stock price crashed (and we continued making 40% growth year after year). Actual value was ignored, stupid sound bites from commentators were believed. It's a fucking trading card game played by morons.
      - 15y ago
wmat 15y ago
If anything, I hope this kind of litigation forces the US government to overhaul the patent system. Also, what if Google simply Open Sourced the small amount of Android that isn't already Open Source? The Linux community would surely embrace it, integrate the bits not in the mainline kernel that should be, and move forward.
- raganwald 15y ago
  what if Google simply Open Sourced the small amount of Android that isn't already Open Source? The Linux community would surely embrace it, integrate the bits not in the mainline kernel that should be, and move forward. This only changes things if manufacturers start making 'empty' phones and require users to download and install their own free operating system. Furthermore, many of the patents cover the phones themselves and not just the software. So even if some version of Android was 100% patent unencumbered, the phone manufacturers would still find themselves in "negotiations" with the patent cartel.
  - azakai 15y ago
    > This only changes things if manufacturers start making 'empty' phones and require users to download and install their own free operating system. Actually this is a very good idea. Phones could be sold with just a tiny 'installer' that downloads the OS directly from Google. The first benefit would be that there is no software to sue the phone makers about. Microsoft, RIM and Apple would have to sue Google itself. The second benefit would be that the phone uses stock Android, not modified with crapware.
    - seabee 15y ago
      Stock Android is also not modified with any handset-specific features that genuinely add value.
    - Pooter 15y ago
      > Actually this is a very good idea. This is a stupid idea. Most people buy phones in wireless providers' stores, get them provisioned there, and then leave with a functioning phone. The idea of a bare phone that you can do whatever you want with would be appealing to a vanishingly small portion of the phone buying population. Everyone else would ask to see the iPhone, a Blackberry, or one of them Windows phones, because having to do do an OS install on a cell phone before you can use it would be a hasslicious waste of time for most people.
rauljara 15y ago
Gripe about 95%+ of the articles that mention Apple, Android and rim: They all talk about winning, like if apple/android/rim don't do x, apple/android/rim will "win". This article makes the case that Android has already won. When I play a game, and someone wins, everyone stops playing. There is a winner. No point in playing. That is not what is happening here. Apple, Android, and even Rim all have profits that are growing. No one has lost. Rim might be in trouble, in that their growth looks like it isn't sustainable, and their product appears to be falling behind. But even if rim is eventually going to "lose", it is a long way off. To talk about android or apple "winning" at this point is absurd. Both sides are making far too much money to even begin considering giving up.
- davidw 15y ago
  There are a lot of "winner takes all" markets in IT. Ignoring that possibility is something you can't do as a big company.
- speckledjim 15y ago
  Stranger things have happened. Look at the games console wars. Sega? Atari? Once completely dominating, then in a very short space of time dead.
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    Sega and Atari disappeared because they were unwilling to deliver what people wanted. There was no market for Nintendo, Sega and Atari delivering family friendly games, especially when Sony came in and started delivering family and adult games. It became even harder when Microsoft came in and joined the domination of the market. This has little relevance to phones. It would have been relevant if Android had refused to include SMS in its phones, but essentially Microsoft/Apple/RIM/Android phones are all the same with a few shiny and rather useless differences. The key relevance in the smartphone market is if Apple is going to be able to sustain its phone and app store as phones and tablets become powerful enough to run flash natively. No ones going to pay for angry birds when it's free on New Grounds or Kongregate or any of the dozen massive Flash game sites that will jump all over a phone/tablet capable of running actual games. IMO the only relevance your analogy has is to apple, because they truly don't grasp what people want. People don't waste hours a day playing flash games on Kongregate or Facebook because they have to pay $1 or more for the privilege of downloading it. When I'm paying $30 for a data plan, I don't plan on paying more for a game, just as when I'm paying $80 for my cable connection, I don't expect to pay more for the privilege of actually watching a TV show. Our world runs on advertising, there's advertising on everything, everywhere. I can't walk out my door, turn on the TV or go on the computer without seeing a dozen adverts inside 5 minutes. I mean a billion people have watched Lady Gaga through Youtube and have seen an advert before and a popup advert during the video. Sorry, but Apple needs to get to the reality that people expect things to be advertising supported.
jsherry 15y ago
Coke and Pepsi are competitors, but they're quietly pleased with their duopoly. Apple and Android should just squash the other guys and then worry about fighting over their 50/50 market share later.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  Generally speaking, one brand of cola can serve as a drop-in replacement for another (notwithstanding vendor contracts and so on). Coke and Pepsi products aren't particularly subject to positive network externalities - it's not as if you can only mix a given brand of rum with Coke and not Pepsi.
  - Gustomaximus 15y ago
    Some years back Coke took many bars to court that were serving Pepsi with rum as most customers said they want a "rum and coke" even if they didn't care it was Pepsi as the mixer. Coke argued (and won) on the customers behalf that they should be given what they asked for. Afterwards some pubs put signs up saying "we only serve Pepsi" which covered them but most just started serving Coke coke.
gcb 15y ago
anyone remembers nokia? what killed them? patent fights, or crappy software?
- rospaya 15y ago
  Let's bury Nokia when they are no longer the biggest mobile phone vendor in the world.
  - tygorius 15y ago
    Well, the context was smartphones. And "biggest" isn't necessarily a sign of health, as quite a few Finnish software developers recently found out. Given the huge lead that Nokia had in smartphone tech and their current trendline in the smartphone market, I don't think it's premature to at least reserve a burial plot.
    - sek 15y ago
      General Motors comes to mind.
  - Steko 15y ago
    So next quarter then?
- hristov 15y ago
  They embraced Windows Mobile the poor bastards. Might as well give the Grimm Reaper a hug.
funkah 15y ago
I believe Apple's plan is to bring down Android by making their devices better than Android devices. Kinda crazy, I know.
- speckledjim 15y ago
  One of the big wins with android, is that you can choose from literally 100s of phones. From loads of different manufacturers. You can get a basic pink square phone, or a massive phone with HD display. That's never going to happen at Apple. The iPhone fills a certain need, but it's only 1 phone.
  - funkah 15y ago
    I'm not trying to debate the relative merits of the iPhone and Android, which is silly anyway. I'm just saying that I think Apple believes in their products and is not engaged in a cynical ploy to bring down their competitors via litigation. Apple has filed suits, but I think they did that because they genuinely feel that they have been wronged. Steve Jobs seems quite indignant about the way Samsung's products rip off Apple's so shamelessly. Also, as you point out, Android products can be made by many different manufacturers. So even if Apple sued HTC, Samsung, and Moto out of business overnight, other mfgs would take their place and make Android devices. So, this doesn't really make sense as a ploy to litigate Android out of existence. By the way, I'm only trying to suss out why Apple is doing what they're doing. I don't agree with the content of their suits, and furthermore I think Apple's products are strong enough to compete on merits, so the suits seem pointless. One last thing that's been bothering me: Can we, collectively, decide on what the situation between iOS and Android is please? One month Apple is doomed and Android is marketshare king, the next month Apple are big bad monopolists dead set on snuffing out the little guy.
  - 3am 15y ago
    Almost as though history is repeating itself verbatim.
  - bphogan 15y ago
    Why is that a win? I just don't see it. It sounds great for geeks like us, but this is the same fragmentation we find in the PC market, where brand x thing doesn't work with brand y thing. I bought a Samsung phone last year, and 4 months later they decided I'd get no more firmware. My friends can all run Google Music on their phones. I have to wait because I chose "the wrong phone." Apple's one device works well for non techies... in fact out of the non-geeks I know, it's about split between Android and iOS devices - the folks with iOS say they have an iPhone. The others say they have a Samsung or an EVO. I think the "one device" works pretty well.
Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
Part of the article seems to be predicated on the idea that Google only bid $900m for the Nortel portfolio. What happened to the stories about bidding assorted mathematical constants up to $3.1415926bn?
- GHFigs 15y ago
  They were ignored by people who can't fit that into their narrative.
- mikeryan 15y ago
  Yeah that's wrong. The 900m was a stalking horse bid (ie google made the first bid at 900m just to get the bidding started) it was not their final bid.
mattgreenrocks 15y ago
How is this not unethical?

94 points by cryptoz 15y ago

> as Google was beat by a shadowy bidder > calling itself "Rockstar Bidco". Rockstar Bidco was competing against "Ranger". Can I now call "Ranger" (Google + Intel) shadowy too?

tomlin 15y ago

This is par for the course for RIM, Microsoft, so no surprises. I get the sense lately that Apple is unraveling. They're starting to make decisions based on fear, not evolution.

JoeBracken 15y ago
As Apple the hardware company continues to invest in their software ecosystem and begins to count on non-hardware revenue the threat from Google increases. I believe that Apple has proven that they are playing the long game while enjoying successes of the short game. Given what apple has done with just iTunes alone shows they are easily looking out 10 years and beyond. I don't think it's fear. In the battle of who's ecosystem a consumer will select for their desktop/laptop/mobile/web/music/video experience, snagging these patents could serve as a very nice speed-bump for Google. Every consumer who buys an iPhone or iPad over an Android device, is one more consumer that is more likely to commit to Apples ecosystem of software and services over Google's.
matwood 15y ago
Not sure if it's out of fear or just good business sense. When they entered the cell phone market they had nearly zero phone related patents. This opened them up to litigation and licensing issues around basic phone functionality where they have no leverage because they have no patents to cross license. After getting a taste of what it takes to play in the cell phone market they know they have to have cell phone related patents for leverage when setting up cross licensing deals.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
podperson 15y ago
Yes, it's sad to watch Apple thrash around, hastily releasing half-assed new versions of Mac OS X and iOS while its competitors produce superior, polished products at their own pace. (That was sarcasm and ridicule, in case it wasn't clear.) I'd say the fact that Apple is simultaneously releasing the best stuff in all the categories it competes in, making huge profits, increasing or maintaining market share, and aggressively suing the heck out of everyone, while not having anything approaching a monopoly in any market except perhaps audio downloads is a pretty good sign (for Apple).
- rospaya 15y ago
  John Gruber, is that you?
- funkah 15y ago
  Just once, I'd like to see someone making "Apple is doomed" prognostications actually put their money where their mouth is and short the stock. That would be fun to see. People will just say anything when it comes to Apple. It's crazy.
  - pyre 15y ago
    A business can be in decline well before the stock price reflects that. Also, the stock market isn't a reasonable reflection of how stable a business will be into the future. If this was the case, then stock market crashes would be pure fiction.
    - kaffiene 15y ago
      Good point. Stock prices are absolute bullshit when it comes to telling you whether a company is good in real business terms. I used to work for a company in the Telco space when Telcos had a stock crash. Now, our company made 40% profit year on year and had done so for the seven preceding years, yet our stock price crashed (and we continued making 40% growth year after year). Actual value was ignored, stupid sound bites from commentators were believed. It's a fucking trading card game played by morons.
    - 15y ago

wmat 15y ago

If anything, I hope this kind of litigation forces the US government to overhaul the patent system. Also, what if Google simply Open Sourced the small amount of Android that isn't already Open Source? The Linux community would surely embrace it, integrate the bits not in the mainline kernel that should be, and move forward.

raganwald 15y ago
what if Google simply Open Sourced the small amount of Android that isn't already Open Source? The Linux community would surely embrace it, integrate the bits not in the mainline kernel that should be, and move forward. This only changes things if manufacturers start making 'empty' phones and require users to download and install their own free operating system. Furthermore, many of the patents cover the phones themselves and not just the software. So even if some version of Android was 100% patent unencumbered, the phone manufacturers would still find themselves in "negotiations" with the patent cartel.
- azakai 15y ago
  > This only changes things if manufacturers start making 'empty' phones and require users to download and install their own free operating system. Actually this is a very good idea. Phones could be sold with just a tiny 'installer' that downloads the OS directly from Google. The first benefit would be that there is no software to sue the phone makers about. Microsoft, RIM and Apple would have to sue Google itself. The second benefit would be that the phone uses stock Android, not modified with crapware.
  - seabee 15y ago
    Stock Android is also not modified with any handset-specific features that genuinely add value.
  - Pooter 15y ago
    > Actually this is a very good idea. This is a stupid idea. Most people buy phones in wireless providers' stores, get them provisioned there, and then leave with a functioning phone. The idea of a bare phone that you can do whatever you want with would be appealing to a vanishingly small portion of the phone buying population. Everyone else would ask to see the iPhone, a Blackberry, or one of them Windows phones, because having to do do an OS install on a cell phone before you can use it would be a hasslicious waste of time for most people.

rauljara 15y ago

Gripe about 95%+ of the articles that mention Apple, Android and rim: They all talk about winning, like if apple/android/rim don't do x, apple/android/rim will "win". This article makes the case that Android has already won. When I play a game, and someone wins, everyone stops playing. There is a winner. No point in playing. That is not what is happening here. Apple, Android, and even Rim all have profits that are growing. No one has lost. Rim might be in trouble, in that their growth looks like it isn't sustainable, and their product appears to be falling behind. But even if rim is eventually going to "lose", it is a long way off. To talk about android or apple "winning" at this point is absurd. Both sides are making far too much money to even begin considering giving up.

davidw 15y ago
There are a lot of "winner takes all" markets in IT. Ignoring that possibility is something you can't do as a big company.
speckledjim 15y ago
Stranger things have happened. Look at the games console wars. Sega? Atari? Once completely dominating, then in a very short space of time dead.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Sega and Atari disappeared because they were unwilling to deliver what people wanted. There was no market for Nintendo, Sega and Atari delivering family friendly games, especially when Sony came in and started delivering family and adult games. It became even harder when Microsoft came in and joined the domination of the market. This has little relevance to phones. It would have been relevant if Android had refused to include SMS in its phones, but essentially Microsoft/Apple/RIM/Android phones are all the same with a few shiny and rather useless differences. The key relevance in the smartphone market is if Apple is going to be able to sustain its phone and app store as phones and tablets become powerful enough to run flash natively. No ones going to pay for angry birds when it's free on New Grounds or Kongregate or any of the dozen massive Flash game sites that will jump all over a phone/tablet capable of running actual games. IMO the only relevance your analogy has is to apple, because they truly don't grasp what people want. People don't waste hours a day playing flash games on Kongregate or Facebook because they have to pay $1 or more for the privilege of downloading it. When I'm paying $30 for a data plan, I don't plan on paying more for a game, just as when I'm paying $80 for my cable connection, I don't expect to pay more for the privilege of actually watching a TV show. Our world runs on advertising, there's advertising on everything, everywhere. I can't walk out my door, turn on the TV or go on the computer without seeing a dozen adverts inside 5 minutes. I mean a billion people have watched Lady Gaga through Youtube and have seen an advert before and a popup advert during the video. Sorry, but Apple needs to get to the reality that people expect things to be advertising supported.

jsherry 15y ago

Coke and Pepsi are competitors, but they're quietly pleased with their duopoly. Apple and Android should just squash the other guys and then worry about fighting over their 50/50 market share later.

RyanMcGreal 15y ago
Generally speaking, one brand of cola can serve as a drop-in replacement for another (notwithstanding vendor contracts and so on). Coke and Pepsi products aren't particularly subject to positive network externalities - it's not as if you can only mix a given brand of rum with Coke and not Pepsi.
- Gustomaximus 15y ago
  Some years back Coke took many bars to court that were serving Pepsi with rum as most customers said they want a "rum and coke" even if they didn't care it was Pepsi as the mixer. Coke argued (and won) on the customers behalf that they should be given what they asked for. Afterwards some pubs put signs up saying "we only serve Pepsi" which covered them but most just started serving Coke coke.

gcb 15y ago

anyone remembers nokia? what killed them? patent fights, or crappy software?

rospaya 15y ago
Let's bury Nokia when they are no longer the biggest mobile phone vendor in the world.
- tygorius 15y ago
  Well, the context was smartphones. And "biggest" isn't necessarily a sign of health, as quite a few Finnish software developers recently found out. Given the huge lead that Nokia had in smartphone tech and their current trendline in the smartphone market, I don't think it's premature to at least reserve a burial plot.
  - sek 15y ago
    General Motors comes to mind.
- Steko 15y ago
  So next quarter then?
hristov 15y ago
They embraced Windows Mobile the poor bastards. Might as well give the Grimm Reaper a hug.

funkah 15y ago

I believe Apple's plan is to bring down Android by making their devices better than Android devices. Kinda crazy, I know.

speckledjim 15y ago
One of the big wins with android, is that you can choose from literally 100s of phones. From loads of different manufacturers. You can get a basic pink square phone, or a massive phone with HD display. That's never going to happen at Apple. The iPhone fills a certain need, but it's only 1 phone.
- funkah 15y ago
  I'm not trying to debate the relative merits of the iPhone and Android, which is silly anyway. I'm just saying that I think Apple believes in their products and is not engaged in a cynical ploy to bring down their competitors via litigation. Apple has filed suits, but I think they did that because they genuinely feel that they have been wronged. Steve Jobs seems quite indignant about the way Samsung's products rip off Apple's so shamelessly. Also, as you point out, Android products can be made by many different manufacturers. So even if Apple sued HTC, Samsung, and Moto out of business overnight, other mfgs would take their place and make Android devices. So, this doesn't really make sense as a ploy to litigate Android out of existence. By the way, I'm only trying to suss out why Apple is doing what they're doing. I don't agree with the content of their suits, and furthermore I think Apple's products are strong enough to compete on merits, so the suits seem pointless. One last thing that's been bothering me: Can we, collectively, decide on what the situation between iOS and Android is please? One month Apple is doomed and Android is marketshare king, the next month Apple are big bad monopolists dead set on snuffing out the little guy.
- 3am 15y ago
  Almost as though history is repeating itself verbatim.
- bphogan 15y ago
  Why is that a win? I just don't see it. It sounds great for geeks like us, but this is the same fragmentation we find in the PC market, where brand x thing doesn't work with brand y thing. I bought a Samsung phone last year, and 4 months later they decided I'd get no more firmware. My friends can all run Google Music on their phones. I have to wait because I chose "the wrong phone." Apple's one device works well for non techies... in fact out of the non-geeks I know, it's about split between Android and iOS devices - the folks with iOS say they have an iPhone. The others say they have a Samsung or an EVO. I think the "one device" works pretty well.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

Part of the article seems to be predicated on the idea that Google only bid $900m for the Nortel portfolio. What happened to the stories about bidding assorted mathematical constants up to $3.1415926bn?

GHFigs 15y ago
They were ignored by people who can't fit that into their narrative.
mikeryan 15y ago
Yeah that's wrong. The 900m was a stalking horse bid (ie google made the first bid at 900m just to get the bidding started) it was not their final bid.

mattgreenrocks 15y ago

How is this not unethical?