4 ms·

So Apple and MS are anticompetitive? Isn't Google being anticompetitive by effectively dumping the Android phones to the world markets (and then boasting how m

by incosta 15y ago

So Apple and MS are anticompetitive? Isn't Google being anticompetitive by effectively dumping the Android phones to the world markets (and then boasting how many copies are activated each day?) Google has played this game of offering "free" services and this worked for them well in terms of crushing smaller companies who just did not have resources to fire back. But this is not the case with big guys like Apple and Microsoft. Google was very naive thinking it will flood the market with cheap Android phones and Apple will just sit and watch. Google can expect to make money off ads, but Apple cannot. So they use patents to make it more difficult for Google to do what they want. Very simple. In other industries there are anti-dumping laws and regulations, because dumping is considered an illegal way to kill competition. Google has been doing this for years, because their primary source of revenue is ads. To be honest, I don't have much sympathy to Google, not in this case.

hn_decay 15y ago
I have to second a comment on the very article linked -- it is disturbing how you see a theme appear one day, and the next day hundreds of individual commentators are parroting exactly the same line. Maybe two days ago I saw the facetious, thin-as-toilet-paper "Google is using their search engine monopoly to try to undercut these poor [making billions of dollars quarterly with insane profit margins unlike any other industry in the history of mankind] companies". Now it makes a showing, multiple times, in every single discussion. Android isn't free for anyone. Android isn't free for Samsung. Android isn't free for Motorola. I will bet a pretty $100 bill that each of them are spending more equipping their handsets with Android than they ever spent on Windows Mobile licenses. As software developers we should all appreciate the fact that each of those makers has had to man up with large teams of mobile software development experts, and each has made significant (although debatable) contributions to the field. Quite a difference from the days when Motorola had a couple of hardware devs run a vanilla development kit build of Windows Mobile, customizing a couple of stdefs, and that was it -- they had their MotoQ software. My Galaxy S II cost me $700 of cold, hard cash. Where's my free product? The free thing is, failing to find a better term, dumb. Motorola, HTC and others didn't adopt Android because it was free (which, as I mentioned, is hardly free anyways. Go ahead and sell computers with Ubuntu, undercutting Microsoft. See how that works out for you). They adopted it because it was a concerted response to the overwhelming dominance of Apple. "flood the market with cheap Android phones " Everyone who parrots this talking point is an idiot. The top selling Android devices, by far, are on par with iPhone 4 costs (you know the device that you can now get for $0 at many telcos). Android has never been about "cheap", no matter how many times people like you repeat that trope. Apple is desperately trying to keep the Galaxy S II from achieving wide availability. I guess they really want to stop those $700 "cheap" phones.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Google doesn't ship phones, phones aren't free (there's always some cost, contracts, etc), and how is a freemium model anticompetitive? You're justifying Apple suing Samsung for proceeds from Android sales by saying, effectively, it's hard to compete with open source software? Or am I mistaken?
- incosta 15y ago
  Phones are not free, but Google offers Android licenses to phone makers for cheap. This leads to lower prices for phones. Yes, it's dumping because many of these phones are sold below what they actually cost to make if you take software development costs into account. This is classic definition of dumping. I have to admit I don't know much about Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. But some Samsung Android phones sure look just like copies of iPhone to me. I am not surprised Apple has been irritated by this.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Is Dell "dumping" when they sell Ubuntu laptops and don't incorporate some sort of surcharge for me since I submitted a kernel patch for free? I can't imagine how open source software is ever part of a "classic definition of dumping". Are they dumping because they don't "take software development costs" of the radio firmware, or open source compression library, or (etc) into account? Besides, is the right response to "dumping" to collaborate with competitors to patent-block a common enemy? I really, really don't understand your position, and that may be ignorance on my part. (As for the SGS/II looking like the iPhone, that's really neither here nor there, but again, I don't think it excuses patent trolling.)
    - incosta 15y ago
      With Dell you have a choice of buying a PC with Ubuntu, or Windows, or whatever. Other manufacturers can also do this. Will you be able to use Android phones without Android? No. I don't think your example fits well here. Android OS is the most essential part to make Android phones operate. It does cost Google a lot of money to make, yet it gives phone manufacturers licenses for cheap, just to make phones cheap enough so that users chose them over iPhones. Google wants it so bad they are willing to lose a lot of money now hoping it will pay off in future when everyone has Androids. Apple (and Microsoft) who cannot use this model (they don't dominate in ads or search markets) obviously don't like this. How would you feel if you were Apple? So they will try to use patents to make Android licenses more expensive. I hope I explained it well this time. P.S. I don't know what is the right response to dumping. With physical goods it's easy to prove. With software much harder. This does not mean dumping prices on phone OS software to kill competition is nice. Apple and MS are just using what they can within legal means. Google did not play it nice with them - why they should be nice to Google?
shriphani 15y ago
Your problem as a consumer is that someone's actively innovating 50% of the cellphone experience for free (hardware is not in Google's control)? I am really confused how giving something for free went from being nice to "anticompetitive jerk". Are you saying that you will reject a product because it is free? edit : wrong punctuation used
- incosta 15y ago
  Oh so Google is offering stuff free because it's being nice! Very funny. I guess MS was also then being nice by offering IE for free to everyone? They did it because they were nice, not because they wanted to have everyone who offered non-free alternatives marginalized and killed, right?
  - shriphani 15y ago
    As a consumer I don't mind free stuff. Engaging legislation so you can keep charging for something that is free sounds wrong to me (from a consumer perspective). I mean no one complains about WalMart right ? It is convenient and people have to muster some other kinds of emotion to be against it (patriotism, low wages and exploitation etc).
    - incosta 15y ago
      I am glad you brought Walmart as an example. We soon will have a country full of Walmarts where local stores have no place, which looks the same everywhere you go. Walmart after Walmart. It's all cheap there! Similarly we just may soon have a country when Google is the only software company to work for. Because everyone believes all software should be free and ad-based, and because Google is dominating the ads business.
azakai 15y ago
> Google can expect to make money off ads, but Apple cannot. So they use patents to make it more difficult for Google to do what they want. Very simple. > In other industries there are anti-dumping laws and regulations, because dumping is considered an illegal way to kill competition. I have sympathy for the dumping argument. However, it doesn't justify an attack via frivolous patents. The end doesn't justify the means. The fact that any company, from a new startup to Google, can be attacked in an unfair way by patents is bad for the industry. Especially when the dominant powers can coordinate to crush any new competitor. If Google can't disrupt the smartphone OS market because of patents, how could you or I? If Google is in fact guilty of dumping here - and it might, I don't want to prejudge - then there are as you said existing laws to deal with that. Let that process sort it out.

by incosta 15y ago

hn_decay 15y ago

I have to second a comment on the very article linked -- it is disturbing how you see a theme appear one day, and the next day hundreds of individual commentators are parroting exactly the same line. Maybe two days ago I saw the facetious, thin-as-toilet-paper "Google is using their search engine monopoly to try to undercut these poor [making billions of dollars quarterly with insane profit margins unlike any other industry in the history of mankind] companies". Now it makes a showing, multiple times, in every single discussion. Android isn't free for anyone. Android isn't free for Samsung. Android isn't free for Motorola. I will bet a pretty $100 bill that each of them are spending more equipping their handsets with Android than they ever spent on Windows Mobile licenses. As software developers we should all appreciate the fact that each of those makers has had to man up with large teams of mobile software development experts, and each has made significant (although debatable) contributions to the field. Quite a difference from the days when Motorola had a couple of hardware devs run a vanilla development kit build of Windows Mobile, customizing a couple of stdefs, and that was it -- they had their MotoQ software. My Galaxy S II cost me $700 of cold, hard cash. Where's my free product? The free thing is, failing to find a better term, dumb. Motorola, HTC and others didn't adopt Android because it was free (which, as I mentioned, is hardly free anyways. Go ahead and sell computers with Ubuntu, undercutting Microsoft. See how that works out for you). They adopted it because it was a concerted response to the overwhelming dominance of Apple. "flood the market with cheap Android phones " Everyone who parrots this talking point is an idiot. The top selling Android devices, by far, are on par with iPhone 4 costs (you know the device that you can now get for $0 at many telcos). Android has never been about "cheap", no matter how many times people like you repeat that trope. Apple is desperately trying to keep the Galaxy S II from achieving wide availability. I guess they really want to stop those $700 "cheap" phones.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

Google doesn't ship phones, phones aren't free (there's always some cost, contracts, etc), and how is a freemium model anticompetitive? You're justifying Apple suing Samsung for proceeds from Android sales by saying, effectively, it's hard to compete with open source software? Or am I mistaken?

incosta 15y ago
Phones are not free, but Google offers Android licenses to phone makers for cheap. This leads to lower prices for phones. Yes, it's dumping because many of these phones are sold below what they actually cost to make if you take software development costs into account. This is classic definition of dumping. I have to admit I don't know much about Apple vs Samsung lawsuit. But some Samsung Android phones sure look just like copies of iPhone to me. I am not surprised Apple has been irritated by this.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Is Dell "dumping" when they sell Ubuntu laptops and don't incorporate some sort of surcharge for me since I submitted a kernel patch for free? I can't imagine how open source software is ever part of a "classic definition of dumping". Are they dumping because they don't "take software development costs" of the radio firmware, or open source compression library, or (etc) into account? Besides, is the right response to "dumping" to collaborate with competitors to patent-block a common enemy? I really, really don't understand your position, and that may be ignorance on my part. (As for the SGS/II looking like the iPhone, that's really neither here nor there, but again, I don't think it excuses patent trolling.)
  - incosta 15y ago
    With Dell you have a choice of buying a PC with Ubuntu, or Windows, or whatever. Other manufacturers can also do this. Will you be able to use Android phones without Android? No. I don't think your example fits well here. Android OS is the most essential part to make Android phones operate. It does cost Google a lot of money to make, yet it gives phone manufacturers licenses for cheap, just to make phones cheap enough so that users chose them over iPhones. Google wants it so bad they are willing to lose a lot of money now hoping it will pay off in future when everyone has Androids. Apple (and Microsoft) who cannot use this model (they don't dominate in ads or search markets) obviously don't like this. How would you feel if you were Apple? So they will try to use patents to make Android licenses more expensive. I hope I explained it well this time. P.S. I don't know what is the right response to dumping. With physical goods it's easy to prove. With software much harder. This does not mean dumping prices on phone OS software to kill competition is nice. Apple and MS are just using what they can within legal means. Google did not play it nice with them - why they should be nice to Google?

shriphani 15y ago

Your problem as a consumer is that someone's actively innovating 50% of the cellphone experience for free (hardware is not in Google's control)? I am really confused how giving something for free went from being nice to "anticompetitive jerk". Are you saying that you will reject a product because it is free? edit : wrong punctuation used

incosta 15y ago
Oh so Google is offering stuff free because it's being nice! Very funny. I guess MS was also then being nice by offering IE for free to everyone? They did it because they were nice, not because they wanted to have everyone who offered non-free alternatives marginalized and killed, right?
- shriphani 15y ago
  As a consumer I don't mind free stuff. Engaging legislation so you can keep charging for something that is free sounds wrong to me (from a consumer perspective). I mean no one complains about WalMart right ? It is convenient and people have to muster some other kinds of emotion to be against it (patriotism, low wages and exploitation etc).
  - incosta 15y ago
    I am glad you brought Walmart as an example. We soon will have a country full of Walmarts where local stores have no place, which looks the same everywhere you go. Walmart after Walmart. It's all cheap there! Similarly we just may soon have a country when Google is the only software company to work for. Because everyone believes all software should be free and ad-based, and because Google is dominating the ads business.

azakai 15y ago

> Google can expect to make money off ads, but Apple cannot. So they use patents to make it more difficult for Google to do what they want. Very simple. > In other industries there are anti-dumping laws and regulations, because dumping is considered an illegal way to kill competition. I have sympathy for the dumping argument. However, it doesn't justify an attack via frivolous patents. The end doesn't justify the means. The fact that any company, from a new startup to Google, can be attacked in an unfair way by patents is bad for the industry. Especially when the dominant powers can coordinate to crush any new competitor. If Google can't disrupt the smartphone OS market because of patents, how could you or I? If Google is in fact guilty of dumping here - and it might, I don't want to prejudge - then there are as you said existing laws to deal with that. Let that process sort it out.