17 ms·
It's a little early to say for sure, but I predict this will do more to hurt Apple's reputation in the tech community than anything they've done before. And th
by pg 13y ago
It's a little early to say for sure, but I predict this will do more to hurt Apple's reputation in the tech community than anything they've done before. And that is not a good community to alienate. I would not be surprised if they look back on this move one day and feel that they ended up net worse off as a result.
Apple used to be careful not to alienate hackers. And Microsoft has been gradually digging itself out of a hole in that respect for several years. Now in my mind they are both the enemy.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- pinaceae 13y agoGoogle threw the gauntlet when it took a billion dollar investment into a mobile OS and gave it away for free. these dumping tactics ruined the market for licensed OS like Windows. did anybody truly believe the rest of the software industry would take it up the ass from google without fighting back? bing, apple maps, patents, etc - all part of the war. how much money does MS already make off android due to lost patents? blaming a single player in this game is ridiculous. schmidt in apple's board was the ultimate insult.
- pedalpete 13y agoIt's called strategy, and from Google's standpoint, it's a brilliant one. Seems to be working very well for them, while keeping competitors at bay. With regards to Schmidt on Apple's board, you're not the first to mention it here, as I responded to another comment, Apple was really dumb in this instance. Google bought Android in 2005, Apple brought Eric Schmidt onto it's board in 2006. So, either Apple was hoping to get some insight into what Google was doing with Android and hoping Schmidt might slip up, or they just shouldn't have brought an advisor on who was the CEO of a potentially major competitor. I was always amazed that that happened. Google Buys Android - 2005 http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-a.. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-a.... Schmidt Joins Board - 2006 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric.. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric....
- chubot 13y agoI'm sure Steve Jobs was aware of that potential conflict -- he was pretty shrewd after all :). It's was probably along the lines of "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Plus he wanted the iPhone maps at launch, and probably a few other things which he could only get from Google. Steve had been around the block, and screwed many people over himself. His outrage was calculated.
- mkjack 13y agoLinks don't work... :-(
- haberman 13y agoApple threw down the gauntlet when they made it clear that their devices would be a walled garden where they would have absolute control over what apps you can run. Prior to Android, your choice was between your carrier overlords and the Apple overlord. Not only was that limiting for users, it was a vulnerability for Google business-wise to have their direct competitors as gatekeepers between their services and their users.
- Apocryphon 13y agoBut with Android, the choice is between your OEM overlords and the Google anti-fragmentation efforts overlord. Yes; you can flash your own ROM and switch to CyanogenMod or Replicant. That is the freedom you are guaranteed in Android. But how many people actually take advantage of it?
- bad_user 13y agoI take advantage of it. I love it that I can take advantage of it. I also helped about 5 other people take advantage of it, by installing Cyanogen on their obsolete phones (I'm not from the US and down here people keep their phones longer than they should). What you say is a classic logical fallacy. Do you repair your own car? Personally, I like having the freedom of doing repairs on my car outside of "authorized" repair shops, even though I know nothing about cars.
- Joister 13y ago>But how many people actually take advantage of it? Who gives a shit. The fact that the option exists means the "android locks you into google" argument is nonsense.
- gibwell 13y agoIt means nothing of the sort. Regular consumers are absolutely locked into google by this, and as a consequence, so are developers. The fact that a few hobbyists can back their phones does nothing to change this.
- 13y ago
- cromwellian 13y agoHow dare they! And how dare Linus Torvalds "dump" Linux on the industry, or Mozilla "dump" Firefox. They should be required by law to charge high fees!
- pinaceae 13y agocomparing Linux to Android is ridiculous. Linus released and built it from genuine, ulterior motives. google wanted a platform to display ads.
- neya 13y ago> a platform to display ads. Wow, you used just a single line to describe an entire, complex, (possibly superior) open source operating system? I'm done reading comments here.
- cromwellian 13y agoNo, Google wanted a platform that prevented Microsoft and Apple from completely controlling and owning the onramp to the mobile web with two dominant proprietary operating systems that prevent third party software installs without approval, a huge huge reduction in freedom even comparing it to Microsoft in the 90s. And in that regard, they did the world a favor, regardless of whether it was selfish or altruistic. It doesn't matter how you try to downplay it. Google shipped a huge useful chunk of kernel changes to Linux, plus a mature, ready, out of the box piece of open source that anyone can fork and use as a foundation to make another free OS, like FireOS, Tizen, FirefoxOS, etc, and they successfully got a platform deployed on a huge number of devices around the world that don't completely lock down who can install what. Even if they had completely evil motives, good has come out of it. If you're a rabid fanboy who wanted Steve Job's platform to have a monopoly on mobile, it's depressing for you, but it's liberating for everyone else.
- ubernostrum 13y agoNot to go all meme on you, but let me FTFY: Google wanted a platform that prevented Microsoft and Apple from beating them to control of the next big advertising platform. Nothing more, nothing less. "Open" has been shown conclusively to take a back seat to monetization. It is as much a marketing tactic (in the sense that it's useful to promote the platform, but can and will be discarded, with spin to explain why, when its usefulness decreases) as anything in Microsoft's or Apple's ads. And it doesn't matter how you try to downplay it: companies other than Google have, whether they intended to or not, accomplished undeniable good through things they've shipped. Apple, for example, has contributed monumentally to LLVM, which is a large and useful public good. But it did so more or less explicitly to screw the GPL. So, faced with all the major players doing this in some form or another, how, precisely, do you plan to rank them relative to each other in order to discern which one is "good" or at least "least bad"?
- smsm42 13y agoThey are really evil people. Probably as evil as those who created OSes, languages, browsers, protocols, libraries, compilers, IDEs - and gave them away for free. If not for the "rest of the software industry", everything would be in ruins now due to evil commies that dare to give away software.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mythz 13y agoExactly which part of investing billions of dollars acquiring and developing a technology and giving it away for free, lowering the price of consumer devices, needs to be prevented? If they've discovered a business model that enables them to invest, develop and freely distribute their own tech to end-users benefits, they should encouraged, not a victim of established cartels using their cash war-chest to buy B.S. patents that they can use as anti-competitive weapons to legally attack their competitors instead of competing against them technically in the market-place.
- Ygg2 13y agoALL OF IT! Seriously, who wants cheap superior products? Not me, that's who. On a serious note, I hope those patents, get downturned and that 4.5 billion investment goes sour for all involved.
- jmodp 13y ago>> Exactly which part of investing billions of dollars acquiring and developing a technology and giving it away for free, lowering the price of consumer devices, needs to be prevented? The part where it ends up eliminating competition and results in a mono culture?
- mythz 13y agoIt only results in a Mono culture if others are unable to compete. Regardless, the world is better off with a mono culture around an OSS project than a walled-garden keeping everyone hostage to their whims.
- derleth 13y ago> Google threw the gauntlet when it took a billion dollar investment into a mobile OS and gave it away for free. Seeing as how MS sold Xbox consoles at a loss so they could sell expensive games, I doubt MS has much of a leg to stand on with this claim. Apparently, the Xbox One is the first Xbox to be sold at a profit or break-even from day one; this was such a bold move that Forbes devoted a whole column to it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/06/microsoft-upends-the-economics-of-games-machines-with-xbox-one/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/06/microsoft... (Other articles indicate that most consoles are sold at a loss. I'm picking on MS because it was mentioned in the article as a party to this suit.)
- __david__ 13y agoThat may be true, but it would be misplaced. I think we should channel our outrage into changing the screwy US patent system so this kind of stuff would become moot.
- pedalpete 13y agoWhy can't we do both? Let the companies know we don't accept their behaviour, and try to change the patent system. The patent system won't change overnight, but the companies can drop the suit in an instance.
- realcul 13y agoyes. definitely agree..no one company (including Google) is truly altruistic here..as I said below if anyone we should be rooting for fireOS and not Android/Google.
- hetman 13y agoBecause until the entities, likely to exert huge lobbying pressure on legislation, are brought to heel, changing those laws will prove very difficult indeed.
- bad_user 13y agoNo. Voting with your wallet works. We need to start treating companies like they are members of our society - if one of your neighbours turns out to be a jackass to your other neighbours, do you tolerate him just because, hey, he just wants to make a profit? Fuck that. Companies must learn to play nice and it's insane to treat them differently than we treat people. It's a huge double standard and if you expect the system will change without us punishing companies with our wallet, then you've got another thing coming.
- hengheng 13y agoWell the problem with boycot is you will find some reason to boycot one of the big players every week. When everyone does their ranking at their yearly smartphone purchase, the whole boycot becomes intransparent. If there were an association of smartphone vendors, a club of app developers or a federation of tech bloggers, saying "Don't do this or we'll stop to support you", this would work out very differently. You can meet even large corporations at eye level. Just find their vulnerable points, it's easy.
- threeseed 13y agoGoogle's continued abuse of the FRAND process has done nothing to hurt their image in the eyes of most. And likewise this suit won't affect Apple or Microsoft's reputation one iota.
- pedalpete 13y agoCan you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean about Google's abuse of FRAND.
- cromwellian 13y agoThat's because most hackers perceive Google's FRAND suits as a justified defensive counter-attack brought on by Microsoft and Apple's patent abuse, so they are given slack.
- sbuk 13y agoThe truth is actually cognitive dissonance. No matter what you say none of the parties deserve slack of any kind.
- cromwellian 13y agoYou can be anti-gun person, yet if someone invades your home with a gun, I'd cut them slack of they shot them. You can be for nuclear disarmament, yet still support mutually assured destruction until that happens. The point of Google using patents is that unless they apply pain to Apple and Microsoft, they will continue abusing the system. The only leverage to bring about reform or a peace treaty is to fight back. Yeah, I don't like Google using patents to sue people, but let's not kid ourselves why they are doing it, or who fired the first patent attacks.
- sbuk 13y agoYou're not getting away with that. It's not OK to say one thing and do another. It called hypocracy and it's low and one thing that Google seem to be doing a lot of late. Here's the thing; Microsoft and Apple aren't abusing the system. They are playing exactly by its rules. Lodsys are a good example of an actor abusing the system. Is the system a bad one? That's a different debate.
- curiousDog 13y agoI'm now ashamed I ever worked at Microsoft and I'm assuming a lot of devs there will feel the same way :(
- infocollector 13y agoIs working at Google and Apple any different?
- Snoptic 13y agoDid you forget the 90s happened, when MS earned the name Evil Empire?
- fpgeek 13y agoI agree that this will hurt Apple's reputation, but, in my opinion, this should already have been "priced in". Apple never really repented after the "look-and-feel" lawsuit. Many hackers just didn't notice because they were an underdog climbing out of a deep hole for so long. Now that the worm has turned and Apple has their do-over we can see that they never changed their spots. They just improved their legal tactics.
- partyanimal 13y ago"The Rockstar consortium is an organization backed by Apple, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Ericsson and Sony."
- buro9 13y agoNot all members are equal parties and it's not hard to feel that the leaders in this group are Microsoft and Apple. They have the means, the motivation, and both have track record. Blackberry are in no place to do this, Ericsson haven't been of this nature, and whilst Sony could they have enough distraction going on at the moment to focus their attention elsewhere. I also feel those three would gleefully follow Apple and Microsoft. It looks and feels, from the viewpoint of a lay observer, to be an Apple and Microsoft effort. Time will tell though, it may take a while but everything comes out in court, the good stuff and the bad.
- daviddumenil 13y agoIt's worth noting that although the lawsuits were issued yesterday, the consortium was finalised in June 2011 when all of the group members were strongly involved in non-Android smartphones. It's not unreasonable to suspect that this action was planned as part of that formation and priced into the bid.
- fpgeek 13y agoI'm not sure about Sony. I can't remember any non-Android smartphones they had in 2011.
- yamamoto 13y ago> hurt Apple's reputation in the tech community than anything they've done before They're not the ones suing Google. Rockstar's a separate entity with its own corp leadership that has incentives to find ways to recoup their investment. >Apple used to be careful not to alienate hackers. Google and their monopolistic practices and their anti-competition ploys is what has alienated more hackers than Apple ever will. >Now in my mind they are both the enemy. The only enemy is Google. They completely disregard intellectual property of others and attack everyone else's revenue streams by offering free products and refuse to pay IP licenses for anything. Google's the most evil corporation today and it's sad that you, of all people, don't see it. Look closer Paul… they're the big brother everyone warned us about!
- mythz 13y ago> They're not the ones suing Google. Rockstar's a separate entity.. You must be new here to not know the scammy tactics Patent trolls use to hide behind and operate within. But judging from your newly created account, I'm going with just another standard shill.
- mkjack 13y ago> and their monopolistic practices... Is there any of the big hitters in the industry that aren't similarly "monopolistic"? Agreed. This guy's a shill.
- fastball 13y ago>offering free products By my definition, that makes Google the good guys.
- x0x0 13y agobut say I want a smartphone, what is my alternative? google, who works harder and harder to sell everything I do to advertisers (now you can't even rate apps w/o a google+ account), and who just shut off transmitting search data so they can screw site owners for more $? microsoft, who is a party to this and actively worked to make the internet worse (and succeeded!) for the better part of a decade? or apple, who at least isn't run by and for advertisers? all choices suck
- WaterSponge 13y agoMarketing is a natural occurrence. All companies/people/groups market themselves in one way or another. Your not exactly forced to buy into whats being sold. Why is everyone so stuck on google core being a marketing company? I think its the least of evil profit motivations since hell I might actually be interested in what google has figured out I may want... Vs being locked out without any options and force into dealing with a certain player.
- fauigerzigerk 13y agoFor me the issue isn't marketing itself. It's that in order to show me personalized ads they need to know a lot about me. They have to compile and store a personal profile that can be stolen or subpoenaed by anyone who is sufficiently capable or powerful. But I agree that there is a dilemma. The alternative to ad based business models is to make a payment via a credit card, which identifies me even more directly and is subject to even tighter regulation and potential censorship. In the extreme, I have to deal with companies like Apple enforcing their broken moral standards on my phone. There are no simple solutions to this I'm afraid.
- gaius 13y agoMicrosoft and Apple make money by selling actual products. Google makes money by selling you.
- fauigerzigerk 13y ago
- shin_lao 13y agoI don't think this is how things will turn out. People will like Google less and less because you can't do anything without them and there is no alternative, and what will happen to Google is exactly what happened to Microsoft: antitrust lawsuits, patents lawsuits, etc. This is not because Google is "evil" or anything, just because they are #1 and therefore are target for more and more people. In the end, this is all for the better because this may help alternatives to emerge as it helped alternatives to Microsoft to emerge.
- cloudwalking 13y agoBut Android is the alternative to the Apple hegemony. You can't get an iPhone for $50 in Asia, but you can get a $50 Android phone.
- Joeri 13y agoNo, iphone and windows phone are the alternatives to google's > 80% hegemony at this point. Still, google is a far nicer market owner than apple or microsoft ever were. They don't abuse their dominant position, which is why their competitors are forced to take private legal action instead of running to the government for help.
- cloudwalking 13y agoGoogle doesn't have >80% of the market. Android has >80% of the market. Google does not control Android. Yes, Google provides a lot of services for Android users, but Android works fine without Google services. Everybody is so quick to forget about "Android fragmentation," but fragmentation is a clear indicator of Google's lack of control over Android.
- muyuu 13y agoI'm not too sure. People have very short memories and attention spans. Companies are callous one day and in a few weeks most people cannot even remember about it.
- bowlofpetunias 13y agoThis may be true, but let's not get fooled into thinking that because "they" are the enemy, Google must be our friend. Google is playing a very dubious game here, and it has nothing to do with being on "our" side of the patent issue. They've tried to buy the same patents, refused to participate in a joint effort to safeguard those patents for all, and then knowingly violated those patents. All through this, they've been silent about their motives, and have even tried to mislead the public by claiming they were never invited to join. There are no "good guys" in this conflict, no sides any of us should be on.
- mtgx 13y ago> refused to participate in a joint effort to safeguard those patents for all Source? you're not confusing these with the Novell patents, are you? Either way, this is the worst case of patent trolling, and may even raise anti-trust issues. Speaking of which, weren't they specifically told not to sue and gang up on other companies when they bought these?
- midko 13y ago> "very dubious game" Quite a statement especially on the background of the other companies involved. Any substantial arguments for that? Until recently, Google had not filed even a single patent lawsuit [1] and so far still has not done so against Apple, MS, and the like, afaik. Meanwhile, the 'rockstars' have been going rampant [2]. [1] http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/02/google-files-first-patent-infringement.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/02/google-files-first-patent... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars
- reticulated 13y agoJust because it's not in Google's name: http://www.fosspatents.com/search/label/Motorola http://www.fosspatents.com/search/label/Motorola Edit: Ah, I see you edited when you spotted Google had in fact filed suit.
- midko 13y ago
- bane 13y agoYet hackers will continue to vote with their wallets, buying Apple products and perpetuating this continuous pattern of bad behavior. Of course the pragmatic alternative, Microsoft, isn't exactly know for being the good behaving kid on the block either. And mucking around with home-built PCs running some Linux distro doesn't have the same appeal to me it had 10 years ago. So what to do?
- subsection1h 13y ago> mucking around with home-built PCs running some Linux distro http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/desktop/ http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/desktop/
- weland 13y ago> And mucking around with home-built PCs running some Linux distro doesn't have the same appeal to me it had 10 years ago. We're not ten years ago, you don't need to do that anymore. There are enough reputable vendors selling PCs with excellent Linux support.
- snowwrestler 13y agoI choose to not care so much, based on who the parties are. There is more to life than whether one giant company is suing another giant company. I would care a lot more if Apple used their patents to squash small competitors, but they don't. This is purely a clash of the titans. I use Apple computers because they are the best computers for me to get my job done. Patent suits don't change that. I use Google search for the same reason.
- keypusher 13y agoJust like Apple's ridiculous $1 billion patent lawsuit against Samsung hurt their reputation? Oh wait, it didn't hurt them at all and it's already forgotten. You are giving the tech community way too much credit if you think they really care about this, and the average person won't even notice.
- ubercore 13y agoI think it might be a bit early to draw that conclusion. Whether by coincidence or not, it did coincide with Samsung's rise as the biggest rival to iPhones. Granted other Android manufacturers around the same time started to compete head to head as well, I think that even if that case isn't at the forefront of people's mind, it was a brick in the wall. It's important to remember how unassailable Apple felt before that. Any kink in their armor hurts them, and that was a big one.
- paulsilver 13y agoI know two non-techies who bought Samsung Android phones when they upgraded rather than iPhones because of that trial. Not a huge effect and obviously anecdotal, but these things do have an effect. However, I think developers are likely to stay with Apple as they have solidly adopted their products over the last 7-8 years, and weirdly many people seem willing to forgive a large company anything, just because they happen to have purchased some of their product range.
- lttlrck 13y agoWell I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find people that won't buy anything from Samsung after that trial either... "weirdly many people seem willing to forgive a large company anything, just because they happen to have purchased some of their product range." Applies equally to Apple and Samsung... welcome to fanboydom.
- erikb 13y agoInteresting that people can have such a different view on the same information. Since the first iPhone came on the market I always read articles that Apple would be alienating the hacker community. It also makes sense because they are mostly bought by hipsters who don't know as much about tech as they want to make others believe. I have no experience with Apple products, though. Therefore my information might be completely wrong.
- cs702 13y agoI'm unhappy with Apple and Microsoft too, but the real enemy is a broken patent system that creates the perverse incentives that motivate companies to launch lawsuits like this one, to the detriment of society. Regardless of who wins, we have already lost, because we have a patent system that discourages innovation and competition in software! Maybe the prospect of patent Armageddon will finally force lawmakers to address the issue head on. I'm hopeful. As Winston Churchill supposedly said, "you can always count on Americans to do the right thing -- after they've tried everything else." -- PS. I highly recommend Gary Reback's 2002 article, "Patently Absurd," which accurately depicts how patents are used by large corporations: http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044_print.html http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044_print.html -- Edits: grammar and style; also, added PS and qualified quote with "supposedly," because it's unclear if Churchill ever actually said those words (thanks icebraining and drabiega for pointing that out).
- icebraining 13y agoActually, he probably didn't: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives... I like the saying anyway, though, however said it.
- drabiega 13y agoThe patent system isn't a person or group. It's a weapon of mass rent-seeking built in part by these same companies so that they can reap huge profits without having to actually compete with their rivals. Responsibility for this situation is squarely on the shoulders of these companies and others who have lobbied the patent system into what it is today. Also, and this is a minor quibble, despite it's frequent attribution to him, there is no evidence that Sir Winston actually ever said that.
- Datsundere 13y agoDon't blame the patent system. While it is true that patent system should be reformed/eliminated, those companies chose to take advantage of it. Just because you can steal something when nobody is looking doesn't mean it's justified to be stolen.
- sigzero 13y agoI doubt it will do any such thing to either company. The article states that Rockstar is acting independently and regardless of any promises that the consortium made (which includes Apple and Microsoft) that they are moving forward.
- debian69 13y agoI love the way it was a group of 6 or 7 tech companies who bought the patents but you choose to single out apple. Was there a reason for this in particular ?
- robotcookies 13y agoI love how people are so defensive about this patent suit because Apple is behind it. Any other tech company doing this without Apple would have been mercilessly attacked.
- gibwell 13y agoWith all due respect, they are already suffering as if they had done this, so I think they have little to lose by actually doing it.
- jaegerpicker 13y agoIt's disgusting to me. I'm a bit of an Apple fan boy and i have a ton invested in the iOS/Mac ecosystem but this really pushes me further away. I'm really close to switching to Android and linux because of issues like this. Sure there are worse things a company can do but I have a real issue supporting a company that behaves in this manner.
- jcromartie 13y agoLet's do it. I'm in the same boat... long-time OS X user and iOS dev. But I am not putting up with it anymore. OS X has been enough of a headache for development that I am ready to move to Linux for that alone, but this is just icing on the cake. They are actively pushing me away.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jcromartie 13y agoIf you make software, you are likely in the exact same position as Google. There's no reason Apple couldn't sue you with the same broad patents. And while it's obviously unlikely that they will sue you, the fact that they did sue their competitor over these over-broad patents should deeply trouble you.
- maerF0x0 13y agoIt was enough to seal my intentions to never buy an apple product again. And FTR I have a mac book air, and 2 ipods (touch, music) ... Never again.
- snowwrestler 13y agoThis is a clash of the titans. I think most techies will react according to which companies they are fans of. If Apple were deploying their patents to squash small competitors or startups, I'd feel differently, but they're not.
- lmm 13y agoApple has been hostile to hackers for my entire lifetime. From suing makers of mac-compatible hardware, through refusing to license their iPod DRM to other sellers, and the unprecedented closedness of the iPhone walled garden, to the ludicrous design patent lawsuit against Samsung. They've always been the enemy of anyone who was paying attention, and this latest move is no worse than what they've done before. I'd like to believe the tech community will turn against them, but the history just doesn't support this.