Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others join forces to bring down Android | Hacker News Reader

Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others join forces to bring down Android

dailytech.com

94 pointscryptoz47 comments

Gripe about 95%+ of the articles that mention Apple, Android and rim: They all talk about winning, like if apple/android/rim don't do x, apple/android/rim will "win". This article makes the case that Android has already won.

When I play a game, and someone wins, everyone stops playing. There is a winner. No point in playing. That is not what is happening here. Apple, Android, and even Rim all have profits that are growing. No one has lost.

Rim might be in trouble, in that their growth looks like it isn't sustainable, and their product appears to be falling behind. But even if rim is eventually going to "lose", it is a long way off. To talk about android or apple "winning" at this point is absurd. Both sides are making far too much money to even begin considering giving up.

There are a lot of "winner takes all" markets in IT. Ignoring that possibility is something you can't do as a big company.

Stranger things have happened. Look at the games console wars. Sega? Atari? Once completely dominating, then in a very short space of time dead.

Sega and Atari disappeared because they were unwilling to deliver what people wanted.

There was no market for Nintendo, Sega and Atari delivering family friendly games, especially when Sony came in and started delivering family and adult games. It became even harder when Microsoft came in and joined the domination of the market.

This has little relevance to phones. It would have been relevant if Android had refused to include SMS in its phones, but essentially Microsoft/Apple/RIM/Android phones are all the same with a few shiny and rather useless differences.

The key relevance in the smartphone market is if Apple is going to be able to sustain its phone and app store as phones and tablets become powerful enough to run flash natively. No ones going to pay for angry birds when it's free on New Grounds or Kongregate or any of the dozen massive Flash game sites that will jump all over a phone/tablet capable of running actual games.

IMO the only relevance your analogy has is to apple, because they truly don't grasp what people want. People don't waste hours a day playing flash games on Kongregate or Facebook because they have to pay $1 or more for the privilege of downloading it.

When I'm paying $30 for a data plan, I don't plan on paying more for a game, just as when I'm paying $80 for my cable connection, I don't expect to pay more for the privilege of actually watching a TV show. Our world runs on advertising, there's advertising on everything, everywhere. I can't walk out my door, turn on the TV or go on the computer without seeing a dozen adverts inside 5 minutes. I mean a billion people have watched Lady Gaga through Youtube and have seen an advert before and a popup advert during the video. Sorry, but Apple needs to get to the reality that people expect things to be advertising supported.

It's the difference between "winning" and "defeating." It's not enough to win, you must defeat your enemies before they defeat you.

Both RIM and AAPL profits are going down for the first time in many years:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=TSE:RIM&fstype=ii

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii

AAPL's profits go down after the Christmas peak _every_ year. (I wouldn't be surprised if RIM's do too. RIM's problem has been that it has continued growing and getting more money despite falling deeper into a huge technical quagmire. The former allowed it to ignore the latter.)

I'd rather have Apple's graph than Google's:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GOOG&fstype=ii

(Not saying Google is in any trouble either, but flat after not much growth...)

I'm not familiar with RIM but your AAPL comment is just wrong. If you look at the data you linked you can see that the results of 2011 Q1 are almost as high as Q4 2010 (typically the best quarter of the year). It's lower than the previous quarter but that's just because of the holiday season.

2011 Q1 was the second highest quarter in revenue for Apple in its _history_ so they're definitely not going down.

If anything, I hope this kind of litigation forces the US government to overhaul the patent system.

Also, what if Google simply Open Sourced the small amount of Android that isn't already Open Source? The Linux community would surely embrace it, integrate the bits not in the mainline kernel that should be, and move forward.

what if Google simply Open Sourced the small amount of Android that isn't already Open Source? The Linux community would surely embrace it, integrate the bits not in the mainline kernel that should be, and move forward.

This only changes things if manufacturers start making 'empty' phones and require users to download and install their own free operating system.

Furthermore, many of the patents cover the phones themselves and not just the software. So even if some version of Android was 100% patent unencumbered, the phone manufacturers would still find themselves in "negotiations" with the patent cartel.

> This only changes things if manufacturers start making 'empty' phones and require users to download and install their own free operating system.

Actually this is a very good idea. Phones could be sold with just a tiny 'installer' that downloads the OS directly from Google.

The first benefit would be that there is no software to sue the phone makers about. Microsoft, RIM and Apple would have to sue Google itself.

The second benefit would be that the phone uses stock Android, not modified with crapware.

Stock Android is also not modified with any handset-specific features that genuinely add value.

The problem with that idea is that many parts of Android consists of fundamental changes to the Linux kernel. Google has repeatedly tried to get their changes incorporated, but Linus and the rest of the core linux developers has vetoed most of these changes.

The objections mostly deal with Android performing certain types of power optimizations that are detrimental to the mainline kernel.

So even if Google did "open" up android completely, it would represent a fork of the linux kernel instead of being "embraced".

The only alternative is to give the linux devs free rein to change Android and rebrand it (since you can't use the android moniker).

Getting code into the Linux kernel requires patience and a lot of work to conform to the standards set by the developers. I saw a great talk at ELC 2010 [1] from Greg Kroah-Hartman on the problems they faced when trying to get the Android changes into the kernel. He also did a short write-up of the problems[2].

[1] Video: http://free-electrons.com/blog/elc-2010-videos/ [2] http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/android-kernel-problems.html

Part of the article seems to be predicated on the idea that Google only bid $900m for the Nortel portfolio. What happened to the stories about bidding assorted mathematical constants up to $3.1415926bn?

They were ignored by people who can't fit that into their narrative.

Yeah that's wrong. The 900m was a stalking horse bid (ie google made the first bid at 900m just to get the bidding started) it was not their final bid.

  > as Google was beat by a shadowy bidder
  > calling itself "Rockstar Bidco".

Rockstar Bidco was competing against "Ranger". Can I now call "Ranger" (Google + Intel) shadowy too?

Coke and Pepsi are competitors, but they're quietly pleased with their duopoly. Apple and Android should just squash the other guys and then worry about fighting over their 50/50 market share later.

Generally speaking, one brand of cola can serve as a drop-in replacement for another (notwithstanding vendor contracts and so on). Coke and Pepsi products aren't particularly subject to positive network externalities - it's not as if you can only mix a given brand of rum with Coke and not Pepsi.

Some years back Coke took many bars to court that were serving Pepsi with rum as most customers said they want a "rum and coke" even if they didn't care it was Pepsi as the mixer. Coke argued (and won) on the customers behalf that they should be given what they asked for.

Afterwards some pubs put signs up saying "we only serve Pepsi" which covered them but most just started serving Coke coke.

This is par for the course for RIM, Microsoft, so no surprises. I get the sense lately that Apple is unraveling. They're starting to make decisions based on fear, not evolution.

Yes, it's sad to watch Apple thrash around, hastily releasing half-assed new versions of Mac OS X and iOS while its competitors produce superior, polished products at their own pace.

(That was sarcasm and ridicule, in case it wasn't clear.)

I'd say the fact that Apple is simultaneously releasing the best stuff in all the categories it competes in, making huge profits, increasing or maintaining market share, and aggressively suing the heck out of everyone, while not having anything approaching a monopoly in any market except perhaps audio downloads is a pretty good sign (for Apple).

I think you took it too far, perhaps in completely other directions.

Apple's products are brilliant, innovative and fun to use. iOS is a great ecosystem for developers and users alike. Apple continues to make incredible gains in profits and pleasing it's customers.

(That was me agreeing with you, despite the fact that these points have nothing to do with what we're discussing, in case it wasn't clear.)

Dissension of Apple is valid in this case. Apple has a history of doing things different. Innovative. Progressive, even. The approach they are taking is none of those. We expect better.

Companies design water pistols and patent the designs. Apple spends millions rethinking the design of the laptop and is promptly imitated (badly) by every other company in the business and gets no benefit.

I think that innovators feel they are entitled to protect their ideas from thieves. (Just as Nokia probably feels about all the GSM innovation it has done that Google and Apple take for granted.) Sometimes the law backs Apple up, sometimes not. But I don't think it's "panic" so much as an emotional, visceral response (insofar as corporations are capable of such) to doing brilliant work and having it simply copied or stolen.

I can appreciate that point of view. Evolution of technology, to me, as a consumer, is much more important.

Apple is one of few companies that are worth copying. I feel that we all benefit in the long term when manufacturers of technology must one-up each other, especially if in order to compete they are forced to raise the bar. You can kinda think of Apple as an incubator of evolutionary technology and design, if you will.

Google is probably Apple's only real competitor when we talk about quality and design. Others may try to copy Apple's designs or technology but I've yet to see the same quality.

Look at the iPhone, for example. Multitasking done right. Folders done right. While other manufacturers were adding these features immediately and doing things status quo, Apple had real-world examples of what to avoid and made those features better while highlighting why they were better.

I think getting involved with these lawsuits serve only as a distraction to their core philosophies. I'm concerned that Apple's shareholders will start seeing these lawsuits as personal victories and demand they are carried out as they see fit.

John Gruber, is that you?

Just once, I'd like to see someone making "Apple is doomed" prognostications actually put their money where their mouth is and short the stock. That would be fun to see.

People will just say anything when it comes to Apple. It's crazy.

A business can be in decline well before the stock price reflects that. Also, the stock market isn't a reasonable reflection of how stable a business will be into the future. If this was the case, then stock market crashes would be pure fiction.

Absolutely true. In what way do you think Apple's business is in decline right now?

As Apple the hardware company continues to invest in their software ecosystem and begins to count on non-hardware revenue the threat from Google increases. I believe that Apple has proven that they are playing the long game while enjoying successes of the short game. Given what apple has done with just iTunes alone shows they are easily looking out 10 years and beyond.

I don't think it's fear. In the battle of who's ecosystem a consumer will select for their desktop/laptop/mobile/web/music/video experience, snagging these patents could serve as a very nice speed-bump for Google. Every consumer who buys an iPhone or iPad over an Android device, is one more consumer that is more likely to commit to Apples ecosystem of software and services over Google's.

Not sure if it's out of fear or just good business sense. When they entered the cell phone market they had nearly zero phone related patents. This opened them up to litigation and licensing issues around basic phone functionality where they have no leverage because they have no patents to cross license.

After getting a taste of what it takes to play in the cell phone market they know they have to have cell phone related patents for leverage when setting up cross licensing deals.

How is this not unethical?

I believe Apple's plan is to bring down Android by making their devices better than Android devices. Kinda crazy, I know.

One of the big wins with android, is that you can choose from literally 100s of phones. From loads of different manufacturers. You can get a basic pink square phone, or a massive phone with HD display.

That's never going to happen at Apple. The iPhone fills a certain need, but it's only 1 phone.

Why is that a win? I just don't see it. It sounds great for geeks like us, but this is the same fragmentation we find in the PC market, where brand x thing doesn't work with brand y thing. I bought a Samsung phone last year, and 4 months later they decided I'd get no more firmware. My friends can all run Google Music on their phones. I have to wait because I chose "the wrong phone."

Apple's one device works well for non techies... in fact out of the non-geeks I know, it's about split between Android and iOS devices - the folks with iOS say they have an iPhone. The others say they have a Samsung or an EVO.

I think the "one device" works pretty well.

Almost as though history is repeating itself verbatim.

I'm not trying to debate the relative merits of the iPhone and Android, which is silly anyway. I'm just saying that I think Apple believes in their products and is not engaged in a cynical ploy to bring down their competitors via litigation.

Apple has filed suits, but I think they did that because they genuinely feel that they have been wronged. Steve Jobs seems quite indignant about the way Samsung's products rip off Apple's so shamelessly.

Also, as you point out, Android products can be made by many different manufacturers. So even if Apple sued HTC, Samsung, and Moto out of business overnight, other mfgs would take their place and make Android devices. So, this doesn't really make sense as a ploy to litigate Android out of existence.

By the way, I'm only trying to suss out why Apple is doing what they're doing. I don't agree with the content of their suits, and furthermore I think Apple's products are strong enough to compete on merits, so the suits seem pointless.

One last thing that's been bothering me: Can we, collectively, decide on what the situation between iOS and Android is please? One month Apple is doomed and Android is marketshare king, the next month Apple are big bad monopolists dead set on snuffing out the little guy.

Have you missed all the patent infringement suits that Apple is bearing down on major Android handset makers like HTC, Samsung and Motorola?

If you had a patent that you felt others were infringing, would you just sit back and do nothing?

In addition, those handset makers (as well as the countless patent trolls) are busy filing their own infringement suits against Apple (and others...) As much as it sucks for innovation, this seems to be the norm rather than the exception these days...

"If you had a patent that you felt others were infringing, would you just sit back and do nothing?"

Actually, much of the industry does just that, or used to. A good example is Cisco, who only uses its patent portfolio for defensive purposes.

anyone remembers nokia?

what killed them? patent fights, or crappy software?

Let's bury Nokia when they are no longer the biggest mobile phone vendor in the world.

Well, the context was smartphones. And "biggest" isn't necessarily a sign of health, as quite a few Finnish software developers recently found out.

Given the huge lead that Nokia had in smartphone tech and their current trendline in the smartphone market, I don't think it's premature to at least reserve a burial plot.

General Motors comes to mind.

So next quarter then?

They embraced Windows Mobile the poor bastards. Might as well give the Grimm Reaper a hug.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com