5 ms·

But he doesn't make a good impression, soon he has to explain why Microsoft is attacking android with patents. There was no "gotcha" and these people on Techcru

by sek 15y ago

But he doesn't make a good impression, soon he has to explain why Microsoft is attacking android with patents. There was no "gotcha" and these people on Techcrunch see this whole thing as a reality show. It is sad because this is serious stuff, Microsoft is fighting Google with unfair methods.

sriramk 15y ago
Unfair is all relative - people think it is unfair Google is giving away Android for free by funding it with its search revenue. I don't agree with what MSFT is doing with Android patents but they have a stock answer which I'm sure they'll repeat.
- sek 15y ago
  What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to something you have to pay for, or do you call Linux unfair? When Microsoft can't build a product that justifies a higher price that is their problem, Apple figured that out so it isn't impossible. Unfair (or use another word) is in my eyes trying to beat Google in anything other than the Product itself, for example forcing Android producers into paying extra with a broken patent system.
  - sriramk 15y ago
    First, minor nitpick - Apple is going after Android with various lawsuits as well. But let's keep that aside. Contrast these arguments - back in the 90s, MSFT was accused of killing off Netscape by essentially giving away a browser for free using the revenue from Windows and Office. One could argue that Google is doing the same thing, funding Android with its revenues from ads. Let's forget Android for a second -look at turn-by-turn navigation. That's an expensive product to build but Google, by giving it away for free (again, subsidized by its other revenues) and is causing serious trouble to other companies which have the misfortune of not having an alternative revenue source. Is it 'fair' that Google can basically disrupt industries by giving away things for free just because it gets money through another source? You can see how that argument could be made, whether it is right or wrong. I personally don't think any of this is either 'right' or 'wrong'. It's all business between corporate behemoths.
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      But Google's products aren't artificially free the way IE was, they just have different revenue sources. Android turns a profit for Google, so it's not really subsidized by its other revenues. And another important part of the MS antitrust lawsuits were that they were bundled with the OS, which they had a monopoly on in the market. Google's closest thing to a monopoly is in search, and you can use search without using Android. The two cases are only superficially similar. I notice, though, that you don't seem to actually advocate any position; you merely attribute accusations of unfairness to "people." If these positions aren't yours or you don't agree with them, why bring them up? If they are your positions, why not state that clearly? Your slippery lack of position just makes me trust your arguments less.
      - recoiledsnake 15y ago
        >But Google's products aren't artificially free the way IE was, they just different revenue sources. Android turns a profit for Google, so it's not really subsidized by its other revenues. http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ >And another important part of the MS antitrust lawsuits were that they were bundled with the OS, which they had a monopoly on in the market. Google's closest thing to a monopoly is in search, and you can use search without using Android. >The two cases are only superficially similar. What about this then? http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2008/01/mapquest-vs-google-maps-google-closing.html http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2008/01/mapquest-vs-google-... Or Google finance and other Google services?
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        joebadmo 15y ago
        re moat: That's certainly an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't change the fact that Android does make money, both for Google and for carriers/manufacturers. So, again, it's not an artificially lowered price, and while it certainly augments search, it's not subsidized by search. Your argument for maps and finance is stronger, but the analogy isn't great. For one, Google doesn't have close to the monopoly that MS had. For another, it's really hard to draw the line between the products, and equally hard to say whether Google's use of its search engine to point to its own services is unfair, if it really believes its own products are better. I would characterize their position on this issue as still some distance from MS + IE on the 'fair' to 'unfair' spectrum, but still in 'fair' territory. Of course, I never found the bundling line of argument against IE to be particularly compelling.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    Your example, Apple is suing many more companies than MS is. >What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to something you have to pay for, or do you call Linux unfair? Erm... HN has LEGIONS of Apple fans who believe Android illegally ripped off Apple's IP and that it is a plain copy. Gruber gets a LOT of traction on HN on this topic. Are we even reading the same HN?
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    What are you doing on Hacker news? I am going to assume that you didn't mean this to come across as elitist and mean-spirited as I originally read it. Hacker News is also about civility and quality discourse, right?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
joe_the_user 15y ago
"Fair" is very relative. I'd go with the term "unethical". MS has been positioning itself to start throwing patents against its competitors for a long time, now. If they are able to do this, it will be against the interests of those who believe in ... freedom, not to put it too dramatically.

by sek 15y ago

sriramk 15y ago

Unfair is all relative - people think it is unfair Google is giving away Android for free by funding it with its search revenue. I don't agree with what MSFT is doing with Android patents but they have a stock answer which I'm sure they'll repeat.

sek 15y ago
What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to something you have to pay for, or do you call Linux unfair? When Microsoft can't build a product that justifies a higher price that is their problem, Apple figured that out so it isn't impossible. Unfair (or use another word) is in my eyes trying to beat Google in anything other than the Product itself, for example forcing Android producers into paying extra with a broken patent system.
- sriramk 15y ago
  First, minor nitpick - Apple is going after Android with various lawsuits as well. But let's keep that aside. Contrast these arguments - back in the 90s, MSFT was accused of killing off Netscape by essentially giving away a browser for free using the revenue from Windows and Office. One could argue that Google is doing the same thing, funding Android with its revenues from ads. Let's forget Android for a second -look at turn-by-turn navigation. That's an expensive product to build but Google, by giving it away for free (again, subsidized by its other revenues) and is causing serious trouble to other companies which have the misfortune of not having an alternative revenue source. Is it 'fair' that Google can basically disrupt industries by giving away things for free just because it gets money through another source? You can see how that argument could be made, whether it is right or wrong. I personally don't think any of this is either 'right' or 'wrong'. It's all business between corporate behemoths.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    But Google's products aren't artificially free the way IE was, they just have different revenue sources. Android turns a profit for Google, so it's not really subsidized by its other revenues. And another important part of the MS antitrust lawsuits were that they were bundled with the OS, which they had a monopoly on in the market. Google's closest thing to a monopoly is in search, and you can use search without using Android. The two cases are only superficially similar. I notice, though, that you don't seem to actually advocate any position; you merely attribute accusations of unfairness to "people." If these positions aren't yours or you don't agree with them, why bring them up? If they are your positions, why not state that clearly? Your slippery lack of position just makes me trust your arguments less.
    - recoiledsnake 15y ago
      >But Google's products aren't artificially free the way IE was, they just different revenue sources. Android turns a profit for Google, so it's not really subsidized by its other revenues. http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/ >And another important part of the MS antitrust lawsuits were that they were bundled with the OS, which they had a monopoly on in the market. Google's closest thing to a monopoly is in search, and you can use search without using Android. >The two cases are only superficially similar. What about this then? http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2008/01/mapquest-vs-google-maps-google-closing.html http://www.webanalyticsworld.net/2008/01/mapquest-vs-google-... Or Google finance and other Google services?
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - joebadmo 15y ago
        re moat: That's certainly an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't change the fact that Android does make money, both for Google and for carriers/manufacturers. So, again, it's not an artificially lowered price, and while it certainly augments search, it's not subsidized by search. Your argument for maps and finance is stronger, but the analogy isn't great. For one, Google doesn't have close to the monopoly that MS had. For another, it's really hard to draw the line between the products, and equally hard to say whether Google's use of its search engine to point to its own services is unfair, if it really believes its own products are better. I would characterize their position on this issue as still some distance from MS + IE on the 'fair' to 'unfair' spectrum, but still in 'fair' territory. Of course, I never found the bundling line of argument against IE to be particularly compelling.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  Your example, Apple is suing many more companies than MS is. >What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to something you have to pay for, or do you call Linux unfair? Erm... HN has LEGIONS of Apple fans who believe Android illegally ripped off Apple's IP and that it is a plain copy. Gruber gets a LOT of traction on HN on this topic. Are we even reading the same HN?
- MartinCron 15y ago
  What are you doing on Hacker news? I am going to assume that you didn't mean this to come across as elitist and mean-spirited as I originally read it. Hacker News is also about civility and quality discourse, right?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

joe_the_user 15y ago

"Fair" is very relative. I'd go with the term "unethical". MS has been positioning itself to start throwing patents against its competitors for a long time, now. If they are able to do this, it will be against the interests of those who believe in ... freedom, not to put it too dramatically.