3 ms·

I wouldn't rush to that analogy. Microsoft dumped IE and we mostly agree that that was kind of dirty. From another angle, Google is trying to leverage one monop

I wouldn't rush to that analogy. Microsoft dumped IE and we mostly agree that that was kind of dirty. From another angle, Google is trying to leverage one monopoly in order to break into another, and they did it by poorly copying the iPhone. There aren't really any "good guys" in this picture, but I at least give Microsoft a nod for trying (and failing) to do something different.

panarky 13y ago
There really are good guys and bad guys here. Lumping them all together is false equivalence. Google isn't "dumping" by giving Android away for free. They have a different business model, and it makes money. It also keeps the competition sharp. Nothing wrong with that. What's shitty is that Microsoft and Apple are doing everything in their power to delay and destroy innovation for their own benefit. Google's actions have accelerated innovation. Android has been good for customers, good for Google, and good for the industry.
- realcul 13y ago
  yes, Google/Motorola suing Microsoft/Apple for standards essentials patent was to foster innovation..LOL
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    Innovation happens when people can build on the efforts of others, and has been so for the entire history of man. Any system that puts up road blocks to sharing and propagating ideas inhibits innovation. The justification for patents in software as providing shelter for inventors to work on their inventions while releasing the details of how they work is complete and utter bullshit and has been so for a long time. First, the way people share inventions in software is by publishing papers in journals, at conferences, or by shipping software, so that their peers benefit. No I know of has ever used a patent database or patent pending database as a search engine for knowledge sharing. Secondly, software is shipped and revised so fast, and the time for patents to be granted, and successfully litigated in court, is so long, that more than enough time already exists for inventors to recoup their investments. It could take a decade or more to go from software patent application to successful litigation, so the idea that the patent protection is needed to shelter you while your startup executes is nonsense. As far as I can tell, software patents serve one purpose and one purpose only: to inhibit and restrict competitors, or to shakedown successful companies with deep pockets.
  - patrickaljord 13y ago
    These were defensive lawsuits and you know it. When you're attacked by patent trolls, the only option is to counter sue with a similar patent troll attack. Think mutual assured destruction nuclear style. But I'm sure you're aware of that and just being disingenuous to make your point.
6thSigma 13y ago
> they did it by poorly copying the iPhone. Sigh.
cromwellian 13y ago
IE wasn't released unbundled from the OS as source for anyone to fork, so it's a false equivalence. If IE was released like Firefox/Mozilla was, no one would be complaining.
- 001sky 13y ago
  It was bundled, not dumped. But the bundle had more impact than an independent "dump". So, by substance if not by form, it is a comparable analogy. MS did not want to get shut out of desktop browser. Goog did not want to get shut out of mobile browser. They were both playing the same move strategically. Give away that which my enemey needs to sell to survive....
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    MS could not get shut out of the browser desktop market, period, there was zero chance of that ever happening, since they controlled the platform, >90% of the market. iOS is a locked down ecosystem, if iOS wanted to block Google ads, or change the default search engine, they could do it and Google would have no recourse. Big difference. Note, Android allows Firefox, even as a default browser for opening links. That's impossible on iOS and on Windows RT. I don't have any problem with people shipping free software, even Microsoft. The issue is whether consumers and developers have choices.
mkjack 13y ago
Microsoft didn't get in trouble for "dumping" IE. They got in trouble for trying to make IE an integral component of Windows which would have made other browsers unusable or unnecessarily cumbersome to use.

panarky 13y ago

There really are good guys and bad guys here. Lumping them all together is false equivalence. Google isn't "dumping" by giving Android away for free. They have a different business model, and it makes money. It also keeps the competition sharp. Nothing wrong with that. What's shitty is that Microsoft and Apple are doing everything in their power to delay and destroy innovation for their own benefit. Google's actions have accelerated innovation. Android has been good for customers, good for Google, and good for the industry.

realcul 13y ago
yes, Google/Motorola suing Microsoft/Apple for standards essentials patent was to foster innovation..LOL
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Innovation happens when people can build on the efforts of others, and has been so for the entire history of man. Any system that puts up road blocks to sharing and propagating ideas inhibits innovation. The justification for patents in software as providing shelter for inventors to work on their inventions while releasing the details of how they work is complete and utter bullshit and has been so for a long time. First, the way people share inventions in software is by publishing papers in journals, at conferences, or by shipping software, so that their peers benefit. No I know of has ever used a patent database or patent pending database as a search engine for knowledge sharing. Secondly, software is shipped and revised so fast, and the time for patents to be granted, and successfully litigated in court, is so long, that more than enough time already exists for inventors to recoup their investments. It could take a decade or more to go from software patent application to successful litigation, so the idea that the patent protection is needed to shelter you while your startup executes is nonsense. As far as I can tell, software patents serve one purpose and one purpose only: to inhibit and restrict competitors, or to shakedown successful companies with deep pockets.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  These were defensive lawsuits and you know it. When you're attacked by patent trolls, the only option is to counter sue with a similar patent troll attack. Think mutual assured destruction nuclear style. But I'm sure you're aware of that and just being disingenuous to make your point.

6thSigma 13y ago

> they did it by poorly copying the iPhone. Sigh.

cromwellian 13y ago

IE wasn't released unbundled from the OS as source for anyone to fork, so it's a false equivalence. If IE was released like Firefox/Mozilla was, no one would be complaining.

001sky 13y ago
It was bundled, not dumped. But the bundle had more impact than an independent "dump". So, by substance if not by form, it is a comparable analogy. MS did not want to get shut out of desktop browser. Goog did not want to get shut out of mobile browser. They were both playing the same move strategically. Give away that which my enemey needs to sell to survive....
- cromwellian 13y ago
  MS could not get shut out of the browser desktop market, period, there was zero chance of that ever happening, since they controlled the platform, >90% of the market. iOS is a locked down ecosystem, if iOS wanted to block Google ads, or change the default search engine, they could do it and Google would have no recourse. Big difference. Note, Android allows Firefox, even as a default browser for opening links. That's impossible on iOS and on Windows RT. I don't have any problem with people shipping free software, even Microsoft. The issue is whether consumers and developers have choices.

mkjack 13y ago

Microsoft didn't get in trouble for "dumping" IE. They got in trouble for trying to make IE an integral component of Windows which would have made other browsers unusable or unnecessarily cumbersome to use.