Actually, given we are one of their partners, I can completely understand why Google may in fact want more control over the hardware that they are trying to innovate new OS ideas on.
See, Google still has to rely on the hardware producers to send them samples of their innovative new ideas, which sometimes Google doesn't get.
It cannot control what the partners are working on, since normally Google is approached when the producers encounter problems, not when they are planning their new innovations around the Android OS.
It actually puts Google on the reactive instead of proactive, because hardware producers comes up with an idea they did not think of, and then Google must react, trying to make the system the vendors are working on work correctly, sometimes without the necessary tools.
Also, you don't tend to find Google engineers working on vendor sites, you find the vendors working on Google sites, which limits their exposure to what is being done on their OS. Honestly, I can understand how it would be easy to assume that it works easily, but it isn't as smooth of a process as you think it is.
It is also very different from Apple's models.
All Apple devices are designed by Apple, with the specs given to the OEM to make the final product.
Google gives required specs for things such as the Nexus line, but does not actually design the phone. HTC and Samsung designed them, so Google only gets the information HTC ad Samsung choose to share with them. Obviously, it is in these companies to be as open and forthcoming as possible, given that Google might change who is making their stuff if they are not happy, but transparency does not occur in the "ideal" world, but instead you are still limited by normal communications. What people choose to share, what they choose to not share, and how the messages are perceived by both sides.
Again, not saying patents have nothing to do with it, but I am saying I do not think that 100% of the Motorola pie is only for its patents, and for nothing else.
I still do not 100% agree with you Derek. While I would say that the patents may indeed be a major reason, many in the Android industry also believes this may also become the hardware r&d side so Google can make their own hardware for alpha level development. After saying this, I do agree that they probably won't enter channel distribution.
I van officially tell you, 100%, that you have no clue what you are saying. If I gave you my work email address, you would realize in fact we make a well known tablet that is on the market as well as other Android phones.
In fact, one of my job duties is the as primary Google contact window. Want to know what that means? I know every cost that goes into my companies device. Want to know our Google royalty? $0.00 USD.
In fact, our cost basis is simply the shipment fees of the device to Google for certification. Now, want me to personally email Mike and Derek from my work email so they can confirm that I do indeed work at a company they would instantly recognise?
Now please do not talk about what you do not know about
I work for a company making Android tablets, and I communicate with Google freely.
Now, I am not saying I know why they took this step, but you could be right. Also, Mike could be right.
One of the assumptions running around my company about this is so they can speed up Android development by running their own hardware for Alpha testing, instead of relying on partners like Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc.
In fact, someone I know who is suppose to have been moving to a new job that worked with Moto Mobility is worried about what impact this may have on the position he is suppose to be taking over.
The other side is they could have bought it for defensive patents.
Honestly, Mike, you, me, we are all just speculating at this point. We will first need to see what Google does with this before we can make a rational, educated guess as to the motives, given it aligns with BOTH you and Mike.
So, based on this, I really need to trademark "China". Not only can I claim royalties from those who make high end dish ware, but imagine how much the "made in China" will net me.
Honestly, if they can take diamonds on a tissue paper to court, then this one meets the proper monkey test as well.
Sounds like since it seems to be more linked to a lovers spat and custody rights (of the copyright, before someone misunderstands and tells me no children were hurt in the making of this), seems like she should just buy said tissue paper and leave the lawyers out of it.
So, based on this, it appears we have more direct evidence that the sales of copyrighted materials by the industry is not actually helping the artists.
I guess this helps highlight a common theme found here on techdirt: Copyright doesn't protect the artists and increase their revenue, copyright helps the companies holding the copyright to make more money, then stiff the artists who made that money possible.
Re: "ad insertions are likely automated" -- FOR PROFITS.
DIRECT IS OWN IT ALL ADS SOMEONE ELSE'S CONTENT.
That is about all I got from your discussion.
You realize there is a price to pay for free, even if you are not paying it directly, right? Google pays it with server farms. Facebook pays it with server farms. Others pay Amazon to host it.
Is the 8 seconds that the commercial runs before you get to see the video you selected really that horrible of a price? And, you might just see something that interests you, or you could do like I do and just read comments sections while waiting for the commercial to finish.
You know, reading over this one, and the Zediva case, it almost makes me wonder how anyone can sell anything having to do with copyright, because after all, every person is a "member of the public".
Lets examine it. So, I buy a DVD, but, I am part of the "public", even in a private setting, so would that not constitute the store selling me the DVD as "Public display"?
I download a movie after purchasing it form Amazon or Roxio or some other service. Now, we have a few problems. I am on a "public" service, the internet, so aren't they distributing via public channels? I am a member of the public, so aren't they also encouraging public performance? When I watch it, since I am part of the public, doesn't that mean that they have now engaged in public performance? Especially someone like Netflix, who is not even giving me the digital copy, but is instead streaming (cord length).
I could keep going on (Movie theater, VCD, rentals, etc.), but I think my main point is this. At times, it seems like our expected behavior is that everyone goes theaters and gives them money to not watch the movie so they do not give public performances. Everyone buys the DVD but is not allowed to watch it because it is a public performance. Everyone buys the digital copy, but then does not download it because it would be a public performance on a public system. And last, everyone rents the movie but does not watch it because we are the public, and you are not allowed to give public performance.
So basically, they want every single person to give them money for every single step and not bother actually consuming what they paid for.
Well, I am wondering, does that mean I can make a stick figure movie, and because people need to pay me but are not actually allowed to view what they paid for in any area, they will never know how bad my stick figure theater is, therefore I will get rich simply for making it? Just seems like a series of logical steps based on everything I have picked up. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Re: Apple Wins Europe-Wide Blockade Of Samsung Tablets; Guess Which Tablet Apple Is Scared Of Most?
I like that, Just John the Google-ite.
Why?
I hate being stuck with draconian, controlling applications that lock me into a single eco system (looking at you iTunes).
I hate companies that dictate what I want instead of letting me pick what I want (your tablet comes in every color you want, as long as you want silver).
I hate any company telling me what I can't have (or did you already forget about the Apple vs. Adobe issues)?
I hate it when a company decides to try to take away my right to choose by trying to kill competition through questionable means (not saying I have not used other companies products who do this, but if they did, they weren't so blatant it called my attention to it like this).
So if that makes me a Google-ite, then I will proudly be so until they fuck up too.
Love how you refer to Apple as a "true" innovator.
Guess you missed all the others that were doing things before them.
MP3 players?
Was already being done. Just because they brought the best quality does not mean they are first.
Smart phones?
Guess you missed RIM in all the years before the iPhone came to market.
Touch input devices?
Do you really want me to point out all the other examples that came before Apple went into this industry?
Tablets?
You realise that tablets have been around much longer then iPad, right? I seem to remember Microsoft doing it way before Apple. Just because MS could not create the same quality experience on it again does not mean that Apple was first.
We can even go back to the first computers.
While Apple was probably the leader in bringing it to the masses and starting the whole PC revolution, you realise they purchased the idea from IBM who believed that PCs would never go anywhere.
While there is a common theme here, that Apple did execute the concepts in a way that brought a superior user experience, in no instance can you say they created something unique or even new. They merely took poorly implemented concepts and sold them based on good design.
Please do not mistake quality and enhanced experience for brand new "innovations". Their strategy is more based on quality then anything else.
Here are some quotes that I think Mike might have been looking at when he was writing this:
"BlackBerry Messenger service played a key role in organising the London riots."
"Patrick Spence, the managing director regional marketing at Research In Motion (RIM), confirmed that the BlackBerry manufacturer had contacted police to assist with the investigation."
"BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) appears to be the favoured method of planning the unrest that has swept across north London since Saturday evening. "
"RIM can be legally ordered to hand over details to police of users suspected of unlawful activity."
"Although Twitter and Facebook have played a key role in past unrest in the capital, the Tottenham riots are thought to be the first in the UK so heavily orchestrated using BlackBerry Messenger."
"Evidence of rioters planning where to hit next spread quickly on the networks as the police struggled to keep up."
"One BBM broadcast posted on Monday evening appeared to urge protesters to go looting in Stratford, east London. "If you're down for making money, we're about to go hard in east london tonight, yes tonight!!" it said. "I don't care what ends you're from, we're personally inviting you to come and get it in. Police have taken the piss for too long and to be honest I don't know why its taken so long for us make this happen. We need a minimum of 200 hungry people. We're not broke, but who says no to free stuff. Doesn't matter if the police arrive cos we'll just chase dem out because as you've seen on the news, they are NOT ON DIS TING. Everyone meet at 7 at stratford park and let's get rich.""
etc.
Needless to say, the article linked does indeed give the impression, and those quotes are just some that came from it. The quote also comes from the original article, so if it is misquoted, then Mike just re-quoted the misquote from the original article.
So, you good sir, please read the article that was linked, and then try stating again that Mike jumped to the wrong conclusion because of all of the Jello floating around in his head, or whatever you are trying to say, because I don't see where he has seen to many examples of third parties being blamed and therefore mis-represents the story that he took the information from.
He may be opinionated, but I do not see where his opinion of their article is not spot on.
If they think this is bad, I could recount my visit to Malaysia. I went to the market, and there were a few stands selling DVD's, CD's, etc.
The assortment of CDs were amazing. They even included the full jeweled cases, cover art, the works. It would have been difficult to point out the fakes, which I think probably all were.
The key defining factor in figuring out that the merchandise was fake was when you started examining artists, and you found compilation albums that were never made, albums that do not exist. But hey, the music was exactly what the covers said, so at least they were good quality fakes (And yes they worked, just be careful buying PlayStation games, because if you don't have the mods, they will fail).
On the post: Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display
My kind of art
We are talking about the HDD, right?
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this anything but an IP play?
See, Google still has to rely on the hardware producers to send them samples of their innovative new ideas, which sometimes Google doesn't get.
It cannot control what the partners are working on, since normally Google is approached when the producers encounter problems, not when they are planning their new innovations around the Android OS.
It actually puts Google on the reactive instead of proactive, because hardware producers comes up with an idea they did not think of, and then Google must react, trying to make the system the vendors are working on work correctly, sometimes without the necessary tools.
Also, you don't tend to find Google engineers working on vendor sites, you find the vendors working on Google sites, which limits their exposure to what is being done on their OS. Honestly, I can understand how it would be easy to assume that it works easily, but it isn't as smooth of a process as you think it is.
It is also very different from Apple's models.
All Apple devices are designed by Apple, with the specs given to the OEM to make the final product.
Google gives required specs for things such as the Nexus line, but does not actually design the phone. HTC and Samsung designed them, so Google only gets the information HTC ad Samsung choose to share with them. Obviously, it is in these companies to be as open and forthcoming as possible, given that Google might change who is making their stuff if they are not happy, but transparency does not occur in the "ideal" world, but instead you are still limited by normal communications. What people choose to share, what they choose to not share, and how the messages are perceived by both sides.
Again, not saying patents have nothing to do with it, but I am saying I do not think that 100% of the Motorola pie is only for its patents, and for nothing else.
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: Re: Is this anything but an IP play?
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: Android is not Free
In fact, one of my job duties is the as primary Google contact window. Want to know what that means? I know every cost that goes into my companies device. Want to know our Google royalty? $0.00 USD.
In fact, our cost basis is simply the shipment fees of the device to Google for certification. Now, want me to personally email Mike and Derek from my work email so they can confirm that I do indeed work at a company they would instantly recognise?
Now please do not talk about what you do not know about
On the post: Google Spends $12.5 Billion To Buy Motorola Mobility... And Its Patents
Re: Maybe it's beyond the patent
I work for a company making Android tablets, and I communicate with Google freely.
Now, I am not saying I know why they took this step, but you could be right. Also, Mike could be right.
One of the assumptions running around my company about this is so they can speed up Android development by running their own hardware for Alpha testing, instead of relying on partners like Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc.
In fact, someone I know who is suppose to have been moving to a new job that worked with Moto Mobility is worried about what impact this may have on the position he is suppose to be taking over.
The other side is they could have bought it for defensive patents.
Honestly, Mike, you, me, we are all just speculating at this point. We will first need to see what Google does with this before we can make a rational, educated guess as to the motives, given it aligns with BOTH you and Mike.
On the post: Where In Trademark Law Does It Say It's Okay To Trademark A Town Name 'For The Good Of The Community'?
I really need to trademark China
On the post: Patent Holders Trying To Drag 3rd Parties Into Patent Disputes
Facebook users arrested!
So, everyone who uses Facebook can now be found to infringe.
Glad I stopped using Facebook. How many people are on there again?
Their lawyers are going to have a field day.
On the post: Copyright Dispute Over Tanning Lotion From Jersey Shore's 'JWOWW'
Diamonds on tissue paper ring a bell?
Sounds like since it seems to be more linked to a lovers spat and custody rights (of the copyright, before someone misunderstands and tells me no children were hurt in the making of this), seems like she should just buy said tissue paper and leave the lawyers out of it.
On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall
Re: Re:
I got the pop up.
A joke site, asking me to pay. Yeah right...
On the post: Roscoe P. Coltrane Claims Warner Bros. Stiffed Him On Millions In Merch
Who is copyright helping?
I guess this helps highlight a common theme found here on techdirt: Copyright doesn't protect the artists and increase their revenue, copyright helps the companies holding the copyright to make more money, then stiff the artists who made that money possible.
On the post: Indian Court Says Service Providers Are Liable For Users' Copyright Infringement
Re: "ad insertions are likely automated" -- FOR PROFITS.
That is about all I got from your discussion.
You realize there is a price to pay for free, even if you are not paying it directly, right? Google pays it with server farms. Facebook pays it with server farms. Others pay Amazon to host it.
Is the 8 seconds that the commercial runs before you get to see the video you selected really that horrible of a price? And, you might just see something that interests you, or you could do like I do and just read comments sections while waiting for the commercial to finish.
On the post: 1984 Case Shows Abuse Of Phrase 'Public Performance' Has A Long, Ugly History
Isn't everyone part of the public?
Lets examine it. So, I buy a DVD, but, I am part of the "public", even in a private setting, so would that not constitute the store selling me the DVD as "Public display"?
I download a movie after purchasing it form Amazon or Roxio or some other service. Now, we have a few problems. I am on a "public" service, the internet, so aren't they distributing via public channels? I am a member of the public, so aren't they also encouraging public performance? When I watch it, since I am part of the public, doesn't that mean that they have now engaged in public performance? Especially someone like Netflix, who is not even giving me the digital copy, but is instead streaming (cord length).
I could keep going on (Movie theater, VCD, rentals, etc.), but I think my main point is this. At times, it seems like our expected behavior is that everyone goes theaters and gives them money to not watch the movie so they do not give public performances. Everyone buys the DVD but is not allowed to watch it because it is a public performance. Everyone buys the digital copy, but then does not download it because it would be a public performance on a public system. And last, everyone rents the movie but does not watch it because we are the public, and you are not allowed to give public performance.
So basically, they want every single person to give them money for every single step and not bother actually consuming what they paid for.
Well, I am wondering, does that mean I can make a stick figure movie, and because people need to pay me but are not actually allowed to view what they paid for in any area, they will never know how bad my stick figure theater is, therefore I will get rich simply for making it? Just seems like a series of logical steps based on everything I have picked up. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
On the post: Apple Wins Europe-Wide Blockade Of Samsung Tablets; Guess Which Tablet Apple Is Scared Of Most?
Re: Respect the Rectangle
Speaking of which, I seem to recall there is something called an apple in nature. I think mother nature should get a lawyer.
On the post: Apple Wins Europe-Wide Blockade Of Samsung Tablets; Guess Which Tablet Apple Is Scared Of Most?
Re: Apple Wins Europe-Wide Blockade Of Samsung Tablets; Guess Which Tablet Apple Is Scared Of Most?
Why?
I hate being stuck with draconian, controlling applications that lock me into a single eco system (looking at you iTunes).
I hate companies that dictate what I want instead of letting me pick what I want (your tablet comes in every color you want, as long as you want silver).
I hate any company telling me what I can't have (or did you already forget about the Apple vs. Adobe issues)?
I hate it when a company decides to try to take away my right to choose by trying to kill competition through questionable means (not saying I have not used other companies products who do this, but if they did, they weren't so blatant it called my attention to it like this).
So if that makes me a Google-ite, then I will proudly be so until they fuck up too.
Just John, Google-ite out.
On the post: Apple Wins Europe-Wide Blockade Of Samsung Tablets; Guess Which Tablet Apple Is Scared Of Most?
Re: Not really
Guess you missed all the others that were doing things before them.
MP3 players?
Was already being done. Just because they brought the best quality does not mean they are first.
Smart phones?
Guess you missed RIM in all the years before the iPhone came to market.
Touch input devices?
Do you really want me to point out all the other examples that came before Apple went into this industry?
Tablets?
You realise that tablets have been around much longer then iPad, right? I seem to remember Microsoft doing it way before Apple. Just because MS could not create the same quality experience on it again does not mean that Apple was first.
We can even go back to the first computers.
While Apple was probably the leader in bringing it to the masses and starting the whole PC revolution, you realise they purchased the idea from IBM who believed that PCs would never go anywhere.
While there is a common theme here, that Apple did execute the concepts in a way that brought a superior user experience, in no instance can you say they created something unique or even new. They merely took poorly implemented concepts and sold them based on good design.
Please do not mistake quality and enhanced experience for brand new "innovations". Their strategy is more based on quality then anything else.
On the post: Apple Wins Europe-Wide Blockade Of Samsung Tablets; Guess Which Tablet Apple Is Scared Of Most?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
Guess you missed that story.
On the post: London Riots? Blame The Blackberry!
Re: didn't you jum the gun a little?
"BlackBerry Messenger service played a key role in organising the London riots."
"Patrick Spence, the managing director regional marketing at Research In Motion (RIM), confirmed that the BlackBerry manufacturer had contacted police to assist with the investigation."
"BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) appears to be the favoured method of planning the unrest that has swept across north London since Saturday evening. "
"RIM can be legally ordered to hand over details to police of users suspected of unlawful activity."
"Although Twitter and Facebook have played a key role in past unrest in the capital, the Tottenham riots are thought to be the first in the UK so heavily orchestrated using BlackBerry Messenger."
"Evidence of rioters planning where to hit next spread quickly on the networks as the police struggled to keep up."
"One BBM broadcast posted on Monday evening appeared to urge protesters to go looting in Stratford, east London. "If you're down for making money, we're about to go hard in east london tonight, yes tonight!!" it said. "I don't care what ends you're from, we're personally inviting you to come and get it in. Police have taken the piss for too long and to be honest I don't know why its taken so long for us make this happen. We need a minimum of 200 hungry people. We're not broke, but who says no to free stuff. Doesn't matter if the police arrive cos we'll just chase dem out because as you've seen on the news, they are NOT ON DIS TING. Everyone meet at 7 at stratford park and let's get rich.""
etc.
Needless to say, the article linked does indeed give the impression, and those quotes are just some that came from it. The quote also comes from the original article, so if it is misquoted, then Mike just re-quoted the misquote from the original article.
So, you good sir, please read the article that was linked, and then try stating again that Mike jumped to the wrong conclusion because of all of the Jello floating around in his head, or whatever you are trying to say, because I don't see where he has seen to many examples of third parties being blamed and therefore mis-represents the story that he took the information from.
He may be opinionated, but I do not see where his opinion of their article is not spot on.
On the post: London Riots? Blame The Blackberry!
Twitter made me do it
Think I just found my new scapegoat. "Twitter made me do it".
On the post: Once Again NY Expands 'Anti-Piracy' Laws Based On No Evidence
Funny story
The assortment of CDs were amazing. They even included the full jeweled cases, cover art, the works. It would have been difficult to point out the fakes, which I think probably all were.
The key defining factor in figuring out that the merchandise was fake was when you started examining artists, and you found compilation albums that were never made, albums that do not exist. But hey, the music was exactly what the covers said, so at least they were good quality fakes (And yes they worked, just be careful buying PlayStation games, because if you don't have the mods, they will fail).
On the post: Once Again NY Expands 'Anti-Piracy' Laws Based On No Evidence
Re: One definition of insanity?
Just trying to clarify.
Next >>