7 ms·
Quotes from Android partners
- taylorbuley 15y agoAndroid is not free, at least in the business sense. With Google needing to spend $12.5b to "keep it free," I wonder if it's really free in software sense. Forked from Google, would it stand?
- TwistedWeasel 15y agoSo, let's get this right. Google just got all in a huff about people spending $4.5B on patents and then goes out and spends $12.5B on a company with one of their primary stated motives being the acquisition of patents?
- jonknee 15y agoGoogle is fighting in multiple venues. Public opinion requires getting all in a huff. Judges and attorneys require a legal defense (or appropriate offense).
- Steko 15y agoThey're also huge hypocrites. No one questions that Google is fighting and needs this for their defense. People are calling bullshit when Google points fingers at everyone else but themselves for creating a "bubble" in patents.
- jonknee 15y agoGoogle points fingers for companies going on the patent offensive, not bidding up patents for defense (their claimed strategy). http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a... "They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
- Steko 15y agoDid you even read the whole blog post? "This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth. The winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop."
- jonknee 15y agoOf course I read the post, the reason prices went up for this auction is because the winners planned to go on the offensive (those licenses add up when you're shipping a half million phones a day). Google's upset about having to spend so much money for defense against dubious patents. It's not hypocritical whatsoever.
- Steko 15y agoIt takes two to bid up a price.
- cryptoz 15y agoThat's awkward. Welcome, defend, Android, partners, ecosystem. It's all the same quote. Edit: But assuming they all mean it, this is actually fantastic. It's good to see that they aren't afraid; they don't seem themselves in a weakened position and they do desperately need the legal force that Google can provide to be on their side.
- canistr 15y agoI wouldn't be surprised if it was all done by the same PR agency.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- forgotusername 15y agoI expect it was presented like this to drive home the idea that the purchase is primarily defensive and that it came as no surprise to the remaining major players in the Android ecosystem. (God, I basically just repeated the same statement over again :)
- macrael 15y agoYeah, creepily robotic. It seems forced, and feels like the lines were fed to them.
- corbet 15y agoHaving been quoted in press releases before, I can say that it often works that way: the PR droids will send something saying "we quoted you saying this, is that OK with you?" It's weird.
- ugh 15y agoThat’s how it works. Do you really believe that CEOs have the time to think up statements? I thought this was common knowledge by now. The PR people write it, CEOs only give their ok. Edit: All the statements being so similar is a testament to very shoddy PR work but it’s not all that surprising. The same PR people (well, very likely a single person) from Google who wanted to get statements from the all presidents and CEOs just called up the PR departments of all the companies and asked for statements, suggesting, along the way, the language: “Hi, this is Michael from Google. As you know we will very soon acquire Motorola and it would be very nice if we could get a short one sentence statement from your CEO about that, you know, to show your and our shareholders and customers how committed we are to the Android ecosystem. I can send you an email with an example statement to give you an idea about the length. Would that be alright?”
- wccrawford 15y agoDoes anyone else feel they are all speaking with the same voice? :D
- biot 15y agoOne executive, who didn't quite understand how the speaking points should be assembled, was quoted as saying "We welcome the deep ecosystem and should be committed for defending our Android partner."
- Terretta 15y agoGiving new meaning to the term "Android clones".
- javaecc123 15y agoGiving new meaning to the term "Android"
- nutjob123 15y agoI wonder if they all use the same corporate speechwriting agency.
- davidedicillo 15y agoYes, they all use Google's one
- huxley 15y agoI don't think they were consulted, this feels like they were presented with a fait-accompli and given sample "supportive statements" that they barely modified before sending back to Google's PR.
- brainless 15y agoThe first (Samsung) and third (HTC) seem to be copies. Similarly second (Sony Ericsson) and fourth (LG).
- vetler 15y agoI welcome these welcoming quotes.
- acangiano 15y agoAwkward. Let's reorder and compare them (differences are in italics): 1) “I welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.” 2) “We welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.” - 3) “We welcome today's news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.” 4) “We welcome the news of today's acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.”
- thegoatrope 15y agoI for one welcome our new robot overlords.
- tybris 15y agoAt least it's too awkward to be fake.
- Steko 15y agoTo: CEOs of Samsung, HTC, LG, Sony-Ericcson. From: Andy Rubin So we're buying Motorola. We need a short statement from each of you for our press release tomorrow morning. Please restate the following in your own words for our press release (1-2 sentences max): We welcome this acquisition that demonstrates Google's deep commitment to defending Android, it's partners and the ecosystem. Try and limit yourself to 1 or 2 sentences. Our team has a couple of examples attached, first come first served and no exact duplicates please, that would be awkward. I think it goes without saying that this is a stop ship issue.
- dman 15y agoNice to see a large company (LG) having a Ph.D as a CEO
- nhangen 15y agoDefend against what?
- Djehngo 15y agohttp://www.pcworld.com/article/237278/google_exec_says_apple_microsoft_waging_hostile_patent_campaign_against_android.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/237278/google_exec_says_apple...
- FrancescoRizzi 15y agoso, who wrote this one statement originally and passed it on?
- pilif 15y agoNow we are going to see how non-evil the Google's definition of "do no evil" is going to be. If we take Google's comments about the acquisition at face value, then the people making these quotes are right: This is a good thing as it helps Google a lot in their defense against the patent threats. On the other hand if "do no evil" means "do no evil as long as it helps our bottom line", then this could very well mean the end of Android's openness. And it doesn't have to be obvious: It could just be that in the future, we'll see cool "Google Android" devices running so-far unreleased OS versions. "The code will be coming - it's just not quite ready for our partners yet" will be their line. But the code won't be arriving. Either not until the even newer "Google Android" device is out, or not at all. We'll see how this will develop. Personally, I would love to believe Google here because that means that we are going to see awesome pure-google phones which will both be a pleasure to use and well-built hardware-wise, while nobody else will be pissed and will continue to be able to sell their phones - maybe even without paying Microsoft for FAT in the future. If Google doesn't follow through with their promise, we'll still see awesome devices from them, but the rest of the manufacturers will be stuck with an outdated, possibly not updated any more, version of Android which is a shame because I would really love to see Android on devices that are not pure consumer-phones (like barcode scanners which still run Windows CE or Windows Mobile 6) The part of Motorola which Google didn't buy, incidentally is a huge producer of these scanners after their acquisition of Symbol Technologies a while back. They continue to produce Windows CE devices to this day.
- kragen 15y agoThe slogan was never "do no evil"; it was "don't be evil", which is a considerably lower bar. "Do no evil" is an anti-Google propaganda slogan invented by Google-haters. Their interpretation of "Don't be evil" has never prevented them from writing proprietary software.
- tvon 15y agoI think you're splitting hairs in the difference between "do no evil" and "don't be evil", and I suspect the altering of the phrase was due to an indifference to your level of specificity before it was due to any sort of anti-Google malice.
- scottkduncan 15y ago> We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners. Only in the patent-crazy mobile market would you get four CEOs applauding Google's acquisition of one of their direct competitors saying that it "defends" their interests. Looks like everyone is gearing up for some serious litigation, and unfortunately the only winners in that will be the lawyers.
- timjahn 15y agoCan we just all make a pact that we never spew out such canned, meaningless dribble when put in the same situation? If you're not going to say anything of meaning, please don't say it.
- Someone 15y agoI think they have to say something. Otherwise, they may get quoted as "declined to comment". Also, I think they almost must say something without content, as anything they say that might have content could affect shareholder value, and hence, could make them liable. It may seem weird, but the ability to come up with a quote without content on short notice can be valuable.
- silent1mezzo 15y agoDo they all have the same PR company?
- Astrohacker 15y agoIt is truly bizarre that this purchase appears to be entirely about protecting themselves against patents. How can anyone not see that the system is broken?
- recoiledsnake 15y agoNo wonder all the quotes look so alike and are no doubt fed by Google PR. They are not telling how they _really_ feel about this. This is like Microsoft buying Dell in the early nineties. You think HP, Acer, Compaq, Gateway etc. would have been amused by that?
- fpgeek 15y agoThis is like Microsoft buying DEC in the early 90s (which, ironically, they might have had to do over IP issues related to Windows NT if the post-Olsen DEC leadership had had any guts). Motorola isn't successful enough with Android to be considered Dell.
- recoiledsnake 15y agoThey have been pushing a whole bunch of phones, a 15% cut of the entire US market is a huge number of phones.
- markokocic 15y agoThis sounds like they all received a command saying "You should welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners." and they all obeyed.
- yalogin 15y agoDefending Android is just a minor aspect of it. What these guys are not talking about is their worry that Google is now a direct competitor rather than an enabler. They know what features will go into the next version of their OS. They have all the data they gather about user interaction and usage gathered from their OS which they can use to better design their hardware. Samsung, HTC and others should be worried.
- yalogin 15y agoThese statements actually also indicate that its only Google that is trying to defend Android. These companies Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Sony and others must have a bigger mobile patent portfolio than Apple and MS put together. If they wanted they could have easily banded together as an entity to protect each other. But clearly that is not what they want to do. That is the ugly truth about patents.
- brk 15y agoReading these quotes is like watching a hostage video... "We are being treated kindly and our captors are attending to our needs."
- dotBen 15y agoLook, this is about patents more than anything, given that Google ended up not controlling all the patents it needs for Android (which was kind of dumb, but I digress). That directly impacts on Google's partners to build phones for the Android platform. The bigger win in profit and power for Google is to have Android running on as many phones as possible (across multiple manufactures), and not turn this into a zero-sum game from the profits of Motorola alone. Therefore my guess is Google has bought Motorola Mobile simply to keep the business running independently but to ensure the patents are not enforced against the other manufacturers and be able to leverage non-Android patents in the Moto portfolio to wrangle the Android ones it still needs. The value of all this, along with the profits of the business, are probably worth the $12bn price paid.
- dillon 15y agoSeems to me they love Google :p
- parfe 15y agoAre these partners paying anything to google?