5 ms·

Any idea how much would this license that Google possibly needed may have cost? Or would it have been one of a kind?

pron 14y ago
From what I've read, price wasn't the issue. Google tried to buy a license, but Sun was afraid of losing control over Java (while Google wanted control over Android, or, at least, wanted handset vendors to be able to do what they want with it, which, apparently, has proven to be a mistake as well). Some middle ground would have been the best choice, but the two sides couldn't find one.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
The Sun CEO at the time claimed that they would have paid Google to use Java, the disagreement was who got to make decisions and neither side trusted the other to get it right (personally I think history has vindicated Google on this point).
- pron 14y ago
  Well, considering the success of Amazon's Android fork, I think that vindication is still pending. And no matter who's been right - legally or business-wize - I find it seriously annoying to have two Javas.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    Amazon use Dalvik don't they? Why not the JVM?
    - pron 14y ago
      Because OpenJDK is GPL licensed, and I guess Amazon didn't want to open-source their code. BTW, Google doesn't want to open-source (or even let Apple look at) the Nexus Android code.
- nl 14y ago
  That's not the case. Sun wanted to charge Google for the license, but also wanted there to be a per-handset license fee. That per-handset fee was what Google couldn't agree on.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    Direct quote from Schwartz's testimony: "We probably would have paid them to work with us on a Java phone" The decision of exactly how open-source to be and therefore whether to require a per-handset fee is the kind of decision I was referring to that they couldn't agree on.
    - nl 14y ago
      From Schmidt's testimony: Sun wanted $30-50 million for a Java license http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2970872/live-eric-schmidt-testimony-oracle-google-trial http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2970872/live-eric-schmi... I've read the $300 million figure and per-handset fee elsewhere, but I can't find it now.
      - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
        The bigger point is, these figures (even $300 million) are a pittance for Google/Sun/Oracle compared with meeting their wider business goals. Google must have spent about that much just trying to launch a competitor to H.264 (e.g. roughly 130 million to buy On2).

pron 14y ago

From what I've read, price wasn't the issue. Google tried to buy a license, but Sun was afraid of losing control over Java (while Google wanted control over Android, or, at least, wanted handset vendors to be able to do what they want with it, which, apparently, has proven to be a mistake as well). Some middle ground would have been the best choice, but the two sides couldn't find one.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

The Sun CEO at the time claimed that they would have paid Google to use Java, the disagreement was who got to make decisions and neither side trusted the other to get it right (personally I think history has vindicated Google on this point).

pron 14y ago
Well, considering the success of Amazon's Android fork, I think that vindication is still pending. And no matter who's been right - legally or business-wize - I find it seriously annoying to have two Javas.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  Amazon use Dalvik don't they? Why not the JVM?
  - pron 14y ago
    Because OpenJDK is GPL licensed, and I guess Amazon didn't want to open-source their code. BTW, Google doesn't want to open-source (or even let Apple look at) the Nexus Android code.
nl 14y ago
That's not the case. Sun wanted to charge Google for the license, but also wanted there to be a per-handset license fee. That per-handset fee was what Google couldn't agree on.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  Direct quote from Schwartz's testimony: "We probably would have paid them to work with us on a Java phone" The decision of exactly how open-source to be and therefore whether to require a per-handset fee is the kind of decision I was referring to that they couldn't agree on.
  - nl 14y ago
    From Schmidt's testimony: Sun wanted $30-50 million for a Java license http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2970872/live-eric-schmidt-testimony-oracle-google-trial http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/4/24/2970872/live-eric-schmi... I've read the $300 million figure and per-handset fee elsewhere, but I can't find it now.
    - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
      The bigger point is, these figures (even $300 million) are a pittance for Google/Sun/Oracle compared with meeting their wider business goals. Google must have spent about that much just trying to launch a competitor to H.264 (e.g. roughly 130 million to buy On2).