I wonder what the likelihood of a cross-license deal between Apple and Google would be, and if their OEM manufacturers would be covered. Apple could stand to make a lot of money from Android if every maker is paying them, much in the way Microsoft makes money from Android OEMs. Using the free mobile OS could become very expensive.
As much as I'd like to see the marketshare of Windows Phone increase, it concerns me that the obvious result of this lawsuit is that the only way to make a smartphone is to be in position to have a cross-license, no-copy-no-lawsuit agreement like Apple and Microsoft have. This severely restricts competition. I'd like to see Windows Phone succeed in the market, but I wouldn't want to see more independent OSes crushed underfoot in the process.
There is a simple way to solve this. Ship the phones without an OS. Then consumers would have the choice of installing Android, Windows, Symbian, or what have you. Ideally the OS would boot from a micro SD card, or at least installed from one.
That's a great idea! That way you'd have the worst of possibilities: software upgrade hell all around ("company X is not upgrading the OS Y on devices Z and W anymore"), hyper-confused buyers (most consumers can't even insert a sim-card without help, let alone pick an OS) and an all-around tendency to nightmarish support experiences ("we don't fix X phones if you install Y on them!")
That would be a huge step back from a consumer perspective, IMHO. The "mobile revolution" is in full effect because the devices have got SIMPLER, not "more open".
But I'm sure Stallman and others of his kind would LOVE it...
edit: removed "neckbeards" reference that could sound offensive to more zealous uber-nerds.
While most of your argument is solid, there's no need to bring the level of discussion down to Reddit standards by using terms like "neckbeards". Your last sentence overshadows an otherwise good comment.
There is no way the average consumer would prefer this. The experience of using technology is rightfully becoming less and less technical. Making everyone have to insert physical memory to install an operating system when they buy a phone would be a huge step backwards.
Why would that be a problem? End users already deal with sim cards on a regular basis. With the iphones, end users need to mentally deal with "microSims" vs full size sims used in other phones.
When you sign up for an account, you get 2 chips. One is a sim card for your telephone account, and the other is a microsd card with the OS of choice.
Most phone users never see their sim card. It's installed for them, and they never have occasion to take it out. Having something removable that's put in by the provider, as phone sims usually are, could be fine, but it's not so different from how things are now. The number of people who will want to switch OS on the same phone is probably quite small.
I'd bet most people don't even think about the existence of an OS. The software is just part of the thing they bought.
That's a very US-centric statement. In Europe, and other places where border crossings are a daily occurrence, switching SIM cards is a part of life if one wants to avoid huge roaming fees. There's no reason Americans couldn't learn to deal with the same sort of thing.
Moreover, in Europe and other places, contracts are not common and phones can be used with any carrier, so people buy their phones from electronics stores, just like a PC, and then buy a SIM card from a cellular company, then put the SIM card in themselves.
I don't think border crossings are really a daily occurrence for most in Europe. More common than in the US? Sure. But still not anything like a majority of users do this often, and I'm sure almost none of them are happy with having to do so.
Daily is obviously a bit of an overstatement, but Europeans are far more likely to leave their country on business and/or holiday than those of us in the US are. As a result, there is a general understanding that you can make your mobile use much less expensive by swapping sim cards. A knowledge that doesn't exist in the US (which I imagine mobile providers are happy about).
Just because something is required does not make it better. I doubt many Europeans would complain if they didn't have to switch SIM cards at every border.
I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying that it's less painful than many Americans believe, and that if installing the OS yourself with a microSD card became necessary in order to work around the patent system, then it could very well become a reality.
Further to this, it's not unusual to see a massive rack of SIM cards for different networks in practically every supermarket and paper shop you walk into.
I can attest to your last line with my wife- when I talk of the OS on her and my Android it is way over her head. The concept to non-technical users is unfortunately something to be taken care of ahead of time.
Consumers don't want to do this on desktop systems (how many people ever change OS from whatever their hardware came with? 2%? 4%?). Imagine dealing with hardware drivers, etc on your mobile device, plus the risk of bricking it if you try to flash the wrong build.
Although a great idea to foster more competition, it has two fatal flaws. One, now way Apple lets someone install anything but IOS. And two, it would burden the carriers beyond belief to support their customers doing this.
No matter what Google says now, this sets a bad precedent and some of these patents could be used to go against Google on a trial. Wether or not Apple chooses to do so is another story.
I see this trial as a missed opportunity to rethink patent law in the US. However I don't blame Apple on this one, I blame Samsung. They made it so easy for Apple to make a case that now these patents have been somehow ratified. Had they not make their products so damn similar the jurors would have probably thought twice before the verdict and its implications.
This judgement says nothing about innovation. Note to whiners: copying isn't innovation. Apple innovate (and have exceptional design taste), that is why they are successful. Samsung just produce thinly disguised, poorly made knock-offs. Samsung have history, before the iPhone Samsung made Blackberry knock-offs, its what they do.
The important aspect here is that Apple went after the most obvious plagiarist (and softest target) first. Now there is a precedent, Google were the most blatant IP thieves and I have no doubt (nor do Google) that Apple are just warming up for the big game.
Obviously, you didn't look at all the designs Apple claims are copies. Unless you believe Apple invented the mobile phone, I don't think you can just claim that this isn't preventing innovation.
Google is clearly not too happy about Samsung cornering the Android Market. Samsung can wrest the control any time and popularize their version of Android leaving the rest of the android crowd in dust. Samsung makes huge profits on Android while Google does not. And that explains Google's stance.
That said, Android makers already pay substantial amounts to Microsoft as royalties. So Google posturing is just plain farce. Android is not free.
>> Following the Samsung verdict, Bill Cox, marketing director for Microsoft's Windows Phone Division tweeted: "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now."
Is he saying that Windows Phone isn't looking good compared to Android if you ignore the legal troubles Android is in?
"Following the Samsung verdict, Bill Cox, marketing director for Microsoft's Windows Phone Division tweeted: "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now.""
Too bad the carriers aren't listening much. I've been waiting for Verizon to carry more Windows 7 models. The only one they currently have is the HTC Trophy which is already a few years old.
In some regards, it doesn't matter what happens to the handset manufacturers, the carriers still have the last word on whether they're going to carry them. They're effectively controlling the supply of the handset, regardless of demand.
One of the problems I think is that MS dictated specs too tightly. So basically there are about 10 versions of what's basically the same phone in different packaging, which really doesn't appeal to carriers much.
To be fair, Apple offered to license its patents to Samsung already and Samsung said no. Sure, Apple was asking for a lot, but Samsung could have negotiated for a better deal, they just didn't think they had to.
Ultimately, there will be cross licensing deals and patent trades made and this isn't going to "slow innovation" as much as pundits believe. It's just going to be a case of trading money to buy innovation instead of doing your own R&D like Apple, MSFT, Motorola, and Nokia have done.
That situation would completely lock out any new innovators from entering the market, since they would need (a) enough money up-front and (b) the explicit permission of most if not all leading patent holders.
The major companies would effectively be using unjustified patents as a form of collusion to erect insurmountable barriers to entry around the US mobile market.
This is a ridiculous farce and it's going to end up destroying all three phone OS manufacturers and dealing massive damage to the entire mobile technology space, especially to smaller developers and possible innovators. Everyone knew if the patents came out it was a MAD situation but I guess someone thought they could win.
Edit:
Changed the wording on the first sentence. Good points from replies about it really being smaller innovators getting caught in the crossfire.
This is naive, this won't hurt much the big guys. It will only hurt small startups trying to enter the market. Samsung, Google and Apple can afford this fight. Google already paid over $10b for motorola and is already using that to sue Apple. They'll keep doing that until Apple is cornered to cross license its patents. Just like Apple and Microsoft did. Eventually, Apple, Google and Samsung will have cross licensed patents and will stop suing each other. Life will go on.
But small startups who can't afford the dozens of billions of dollars these companies are spending to keep Apple off. Those are the ones who will be hurt. Next time an innovative startups tries to disrupt anything Apple is doing. They'll be put out of business because they use pinch to zoom. And this trial has set precedence in Apple's favor. This result is terrible for any small app developer. You should be worried about them, not Apple or Google.
Thank you. This has been my main worry with this situation. MPEG LA been very successful preventing competition in the video space because, to quote Steve Jobs "all video codecs are covered by patents". Microsoft has tried to scare Linux startups by claiming it infringes on their patents. Honeywell claims to own smart thermostats and is suing to secure its position.
I don't want a world where after the first 5-10 years of an industry no new players can enter because the entrenched companies own it legally. Patents as they exist today don't translate to the fast iterative software world. We need to restrict patents to 2 or 3 years. Give the innovator a runway, first-mover advantage. Owning a scroll animation for 20 years is insane.
If you use Apple App Store you accept in the Eula that Apple could use any of your ideas or patents without compensation.
But they could tell you to pay more to them if you use the bouncing effect in a graph, something I was doing five years ago.
It is true that Samsumg stole a lot of Apple's design but also true that Apple did the same with Google Earth, gmail design, dropbox, OLPC sandboxing and process interruption. Good designers are always learning from others.
It could hurt some of the big guys. Whoever gets sales blocked in their biggest markets could suffer big time (or even go out of business)...
That "Apple is the bogey-man and they'll eat anyone that does pinch and zoom" argument is turning into a hollow fallacy. It's not just Apple and they won't sue everyone - it's an all-out war against very specific players (Google, Apple, Samsung and a couple others) that was even announced by Jobs before it happened. Not like they're moving entirely to the business of "patent trolling the world". "Innovative startups that try to disrupt anything" will be safe, IMHO... (except, of course, if "disrupting anything" means blatantly copying everything, from hardware design to icons...)
" First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
I remember the days in witch patenting software or business methods was unthinkable, but now it is the "New normal". It was hard to believe at the time but is happening now.
Can you say more about how this will happen? Do you really think the aftermath of this lawsuit will destroy Apple and Google? Who will take over their massive markets?
The phone manufacturers will be fine. There won't really be any massive damage to their revenue, the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer.
>> the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer.
Even this remains to be seen.
I don't think vanilla Android is going to be affected very much. There might be a chilling effect on anyone trying to re-skin Android as an iPhone wannabe, but that's probably a good thing.
I'm an iPhone user who thinks that some of Samsung's older models were blatantly trying to knock off the iPhone, but on the whole, I don't think that Android itself does, especially with the more recent releases of the OS.
Samsung just got a deserved spanking for some past bad behaviour, but even they have moved past the "aping" phase and have been producing non-infringing phones lately.
> Even this remains to be seen. I don't think vanilla Android is going to be affected very much.
You're obviously not familiar with the lawsuit on universal search. [1] Apple forced Samsung to remove a feature from its phone. Even from the stock Android Galaxy Nexus, which is much different from the iPhone. This lawsuit is already affecting consumers today. My tablet was just updated yesterday and had universal search removed. Meaning Apple already directly made my device worse.
I had heard about the universal search part, but I tend to think that at some point in the near future you'll see Google and Apple work out a cross-licensing agreement similar to the one between Apple and Microsoft, which means that feature will be coming back.
Apparently the universal search is back in 4.1 in a non-infringing way.
>> Google significantly revamped search in Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) by introducing their new search product, Google Now. The persistent search bar stayed, but it now pulled up Google Now with its fancy prediction and useful cards. It now intelligently pulls in weather, driving directions, sports scores, and more without the user even asking. They also tweaked the way it searched both the web and the device, side-stepping Apple's patent. In addition, they countered Apple's Siri by offering a similar (but often faster) voice search and actions within Google Now.
So when you said "that remains to be seen". You actually meant "that does not remains to be seen" and "that remains to stay that way before the end of times"?
Sometimes admitting you were wrong is the right way to go.
>> the only party that will be hurt in the long run is the consumer.
>> Even this remains to be seen.
>> So when you said "that remains to be seen". You actually meant "that does not remains to be seen -- but remains to stay that way before the end of times"?
Long run to me means 3-4 years, not "end of times". I think Google and Apple will come to a licensing deal in a shorter time period, because it's in both of their interests to do so.
Because of this, I don't think that the consumer is hurt in the long run, so it does remain to be seen if the statement I replied to will happen.
This is the equivalent of a border skirmish to Apple. It has a little more impact on Samsung, but certainly not enough to do any permanent damage. That's why all companies involved persist. Do you really think that if this were some kind of existential threat they wouldn't settle?
As much as I'd like to see the marketshare of Windows Phone increase, it concerns me that the obvious result of this lawsuit is that the only way to make a smartphone is to be in position to have a cross-license, no-copy-no-lawsuit agreement like Apple and Microsoft have. This severely restricts competition. I'd like to see Windows Phone succeed in the market, but I wouldn't want to see more independent OSes crushed underfoot in the process.