back to article Google's Moto move spells iPhone doom

Mergers and acquisitions used to be how a company bought revenue, customers, or cool technology. In the mobile world, it's increasingly a way to buy defensive patents. This was clear in Google's $12.5bn acquisition of Motorola Mobility, and it will unfortunately fuel many of the strategies Apple, Google, and others employ to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. azimutha

    Are you kidding?

    Too bad Motorola's patents are mostly old and mostly worthless. Neither they nor Google have much to stack against any one of their competitors, let alone all of them. Yeah, maybe like the Microsoft of old, Google will get away shoving crap down the throats of those too cheap or dumb to know any better, but I'd still put my money on Apple.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      good bet!

      why go after cheap and dumb when expensive and dumb is so profitable....

  2. MacRat
    Angel

    Strange Kids

    "kids buy Android ("It's cheap!")"

    You hang around strange kids.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    Predictions, predictions

    These are crazy times, and the only truth is that none of us know how any of this will end up.

    Naturally the tech pundits do their damndest to have us think they 'know' what they are talking about. They don't.

    Save this opinion piece and read it again in eighteen months time. Then we'll see.

  4. Bruce Hoult
    Facepalm

    surprise

    Man who sells middleware for Android predicts Android will win.

  5. jarjarbinks

    Valid points

    I agree with what you say here. It's a darn shame Apple, the largest company in the world now (or most profitable, richest?) has stopped to such anti-competitive crap to try to keep it's throne. I can't imagine how many lawyers are needed to roll through tens of thousands of patents. It sickens me though that they were able to actually stop Samsung based purely on that it looks similar to the ipad. It has different hardware, different screen, different OS.. but because it looks similar.. not even exactly..but similar, they won. I don't understand how that is possible. I wish someone could explain to me the specific points how Apple defeated Samsung in this case? As well, there are several other tablets including the Xoom that look very similar too.. so are all those automatically banned now too?

    I too agree apple makes good products.. but because of their business practices, at least from what I've been reading and/or talking to people, more and more people are shunning apple. Not everyone of course.. but many that would be buying their products are. As a developer, I will not develop for iPhone, period. I don't like that I must buy a Mac, must pay $100, and then hope after potentially months of development using Objective-C of all languages, that apple likes my app enough to approve it. Then if they do, I have to hope they decide not to ban it for no apparent reason and if they do, just suck it up and live with it. It's pure crap. I don't want to support a company that acts like an 800 pound bully.

    More so, I continue to see article after article about various tablets, how they are ok, but aren't near as good as an ipad. I have an Asus Transformer and I gotta say, this thing works. I also own an iPad (the last apple product I'll buy until they change their ways). It's a great product. But all the articles and posts that say how difficult Android 3 is.. I don't get it. My wife, my dad, my mom, my kids, have no problem at all using it. They turn it on, and touch an app to run it. Is it any different than an ipad? Well..yes.. it offers a lot more in some areas, like notifications, live widgets with real-time updates and such that you can make use of. Do you have to do these things? Nope. You can use an android tablet just like an ipad.. barring a few things (like netflix, hulu and skype). Android tablets have been out for what.. 4 months now, in one year from now let's see where things are with apps.

    The last thing I'll say is all the banter about how hardware does not sell which is why iPhone 5 is rumored to be only a dual-core phone while quad-core phones are coming out on Android around the same time. I recall a war with Mhz (then Ghz) between AMD and Intel. AMD for a while was kicking Intel's butt in speed and price. When they switched to a non-Mhz naming scheme, they went down hill. People liked that Intel was 1Ghz, 1.5Ghz, 2Ghz, meanwhile AMD was not specifying speeds but a naming scheme that was "comparable" to the Intel chip speeds. These were every day customers that were not geeks, but just liked the idea of owning a 2Ghz cpu because it was "faster". Even if the AMD was cheaper and faster, it didn't come across that way. My point is, there is a lot of talk now that Apple is not releasing more powerful hardware than Android devices, that they don't need to..it's not about the hardware, it's about the experience. To some degree I agree with that.. but when more capable games and apps come out on Android because they are easier to code (Java is after all easier to work with than Objective-C and there are way more Java developers) and much more powerful devices coming soon so how long will an out dated ipad 2 (or ipad 3 if the rumors are true) last compared to quad core or more, with more ram and all the extras like SD, HDMI, USB and more?

    There are always going to be fans of both products, and frankly, I wish all the "apple is best, google will die" and vice versa would stop. It's ridiculous. The only way Apple could win is to do what they are doing now with all the patent lawsuits, but these will probably take years to play out and by then Android will have proliferated far too much to just ban it completely. I'd much rather see innovation.. let them compete on features.. functionality.. design. I am really looking forward to NFC and Barometer sensors on my devices, something from what I can tell none of the apple devices will have, although rumors about iPhone 5 indicate NFC.. we'll see. But new APIs, new functionality.. that's what we need and we need it from both sides. Let's get back to making the devices really cool and "I can't wait for it." attitude instead of trying to use lawyers to completely stop or at the very minimum worry potential manufacturers like Samsung about using Android.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Mushroom

      You don't stay at the top by playing nice...

      ... You play hard, fast, and brutal. See Microsoft's dominance in the 90's... they bought what they could, sued what they couldn't get and earned a rep as being 'The Evil Empire'. Apple's just following the same strategy, and Google would too, when they eventually reach the point where some whippersnapper of a company goes for its slice of the pie.

      You lot need to wake up and smell the coffee... business is cut-throat. It is not 'let's play nice, ok'.

  6. Rupert Stubbs

    Desperately spinning...

    Gotta love the argument that because Android tablets aren't selling, this will force their manufacturers to sell them at a loss - and suddenly they will become incredibly popular! Of course - Apple are doooomed! Let's all sell everything at a loss, and we'll all become rich.

    Seriously, why does this Google shill get a column here? He might as well be saying "We welcome today's news, which demonstrates Googles commitment etc."...

  7. sleepy

    Wrong!

    Don't be evil - haha. Google's whippersnapper CEO is sailing into a world of hurt. They've built their business too heavily on stolen IP (your privacy, everyone's copyright, GPL violation), for too long, and mobile is where it's coming unstuck. The carriers currently push out Android phones, because they are cheap and tick marketing boxes. But apart from geeks, the customers don't actually use Android internet features. Android tablets are stuck in the channel. Non-geeks don't buy them at all. This is a replay of Microsoft with music. Android is Playsforsure, and now Moto is Zune, which Google thinks Android partners will be happy about.

    Apple wasn't worried by Moto patents; the ones everyone needs are FRAND-encumbered, so Apple can license on Fair and Reasonable terms. But Apple is having to use litigation to get a fair price. Just as they did with Nokia. The deal will get done, and Apple will pay the same as everyone else, just as with Nokia.

    See what Android looked like nine months after iPhone was launched: http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild. Google and licensees definitely copied iPhone to get traction in the market.

    Google have a dismissive attitude to the law. They control Android release by violating GPL. They claim patents are worthless and anticompetitive, yet their entire business was based on one (pagerank), and they pay billions to buy patents intending to use them as offensive weapons. Next they will probably subsidise a Moto tablet to get traction in the market. Then antitrust legislation will be against them too.

    Google's greed and disregard of intellectual property is going to trip them up quite soon now. Buying MMI is desperation, not dominance. And MMI may actually cost them $19 billion, because they use the "double Irish" tax dodge to avoid paying US taxes. They'll have to pay those taxes to bring $12B into the US.

    1. Gordon 10

      Nice post

      With lots of good stuff that I agree with - shame your ranty style makes you come across as an anti-google fanboi - it detracts from the valid points you make about googles attitude to any lP but their own.

    2. fandom
      Angel

      Works both ways

      And now it's Apple aping Android:

      http://www.androidapps.com/tech/articles/9016-android-features-found-in-ios-5-beta-cause-for-more-copycat-talk

      And ugly truth nobody will tell you, except for me of course, is that everyone copies the competition, and I do mean everyone. It's called progress.

      1. PJI
        Unhappy

        Dreadful imitation

        And they all copy each other, blatantly: did you notice how similarly they all make and receive telepnone calls, SMS, MMS, have got calendars and notes? It's dreadful plagiarism. Every mobile 'phone designer should have a unique way of communicating. Android did a blatant copy of Apple who copied Nokia .. (and some would say none of them have done it very well).

        All got speakers, microphones, cameras - how dare they adopt good ideas from each other, nearly as bad as cars in general having four wheels, a steering wheel, brakes, gearbox .... And do n't get me going about the similarity of PC hardware, houses, farms ....

  8. blueprint
    FAIL

    Wishful thinking

    It's always better when comment and analysis is given by someone without a vested interest in one side of the argument. This isn't an insightfully constructed piece about Android and iPhone, Google and Apple, and the patent wars, it's simply wishful thinking.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    litigation silliness

    this is a case wherein anyone can point a finger to apple and say "he started it first"

    it also makes one wonder about all the bile apple have been spewing about being this cool leading edge company that survives just by building and selling the best kit. apple has just told world + dog "you know what? we don't build the best tablets, Samsung does".

    the way i see it is apple cashed in on some kind of jingoistic american bullshit, and the rest of the world simply followed. the first thing i noticed when i played with an ipad was the "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China" logo.

    as the saying goes, "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but ...."

  10. Arctic fox
    Headmaster

    I think that it is *possible* that as far as the tablet market is concerned......

    .............we *may* be ignoring the (possible) 500 lb gorilla in the room because all the (entirely understandable) focus on Google/Android and Apple/iOS. In less than a year (as seems increasingly likely) Win8 will be coming to the tablet party. If we take as a hypothetical assumption for the purposes of discussion that MS *do* succeed in creating a *genuinely* touch-friendly version of Windows that does not kill your battery then what effect will *that* have on the market? I think that the current assumption that this is simply a war between Mountain View and Cupertino and that Redmond will remain irrelevant in the tablet space may, just may, prove to be a mistake. Given what a *seriously* pony os Win7 is as a tablet/touch UI os it is fairly amazing that they, believe or not, actually have 5% of the tablet market today! I think that any assumptions that this will remain a two-way fight are rather premature.

    1. Armando 123

      A lot of ifs

      Given all your premises, you make a good case, but there are quite a few if clauses in it.

      Remember, MS dominated the PC market because they sold to businesses and people bought their first computer based on what they had at work. Tablets are going to be different. First, most workplaces don't use tablets and those that do probably aren't using MS. Second, an iPad is $500 in 2011 vs a PC being $2000 in 1982. Adjust for inflation/wages, and we're talking a tablet being 1/10 or less the investment of someone's first PC.

      1. Arctic fox
        Windows

        @Armando 123 RE "A lot of ifs"

        Of course there are "ifs" in any discussion of future possibilities - I do not claim to have a more advanced crystal ball than the next guy. I would point out however that the reasons why the business market is not yet tapped into in any *serious* way is there is not currently available an os that is *both* touch friendly *and* a serious os. *If* Apple had developed a touch-friendly full version of OSX for tablets then that would be a different situation. If Win8 is implemented properly (yes, there's a caveat because I am not any kind of fanboy and I do not deal in certainties) then it will be the first touch friendly *full productivity* os in the tablet space. Then all that remains to be seen is a. Does the market, business and/or home want it? b. Will the OEMs actually produce kit worth running it on? All kinds of unknowns, rather like life in general.

    2. redniels
      Alert

      my thoughts exactly

      yup. you're right. I couldn't put it better. come on guys:

      Just keep ignoring MS! winpho 7 does not sell.. so MS is old news! wait... what? so Oracle too, is old news? and MS just lies down on the floor and dies? just like that?

      right.

      mark my words: they will BUY themselves their relevance. they did it before, they will do it again, hell... the wheels are already in motion. winpho 7.5 is coming, with skype integrated, the xbox badge, finally localised, finally being able to sell it in german, dutch, french, spanish , italian, portuguese, chinese, japanese etc. will make a huge difference. next up: Win8 on ARM/Intel ...everywhere.

      back on the subject: the Motorola patents are nice.... but where do they protect Google from the Oracle Litigation? that's right: nowhere. Oracle doesn't play in the communication (handset) field. there are several thousand sticks in the Motorola inventory, but none is really usable to whip Oracle's ass. that gnat just will not go away.

      Also it will be hard to use them against MS, same reason as Oracle: MS is mostly software, not hardware. Moto's patents are almost all about hardware.. so they can only really be used against Apple and Nokia... and the past big three in comm's (Ericsson, Nokia and Moto) all played nicely among themselves in the past: they all cross licensed each others stuff like crazy in the 90-ies/early 00's.

      which makes them only really handy against Apple...

      12.5 billion just to irritate Apple....wow... they must hate them very much.

  11. Daverk
    Alert

    End the Antagonism

    When are they going to end this stupid spat?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the usual

    "There's a reason I'm typing this on a MacBook Air and researched this article using my iPad and iPhone."

    There is indeed

  13. Syren Baran
    Devil

    Google spells Apple doom?

    Nah, Apples lawyers seem to be doing that nicely.

    Faking evidence in court is'nt a trivial accusation, and that seems to be the case.

    http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/107599/apple-levert-onjuist-bewijs-in-zaak-tegen-samsung.html

    1. Jedit Silver badge
      Joke

      What, Apple lie?

      Here's the Apple design strategy:

      1) Make a generic product that is very dear.

      2) Slap an "i" on the front of the name.

      3) Claim it's original.

      Samsung are being accused of reverse engineering this strategy, hence producing the original i dear.

      1. aThingOrTwo

        Generic?

        Apple's products only look generic after the shelves are flooded with products 'inspired' by them. Just more open! Without the drawbacks! Although most of these products completely miss what makes the Apple products appeal in the first place, just like you have.

        Phones didn't look like the iPhone form factor until the iPhone.

        Tablets didn't look like the iPad form factor until the iPad.

        PC laptops didn't look like MacBook Air until the MacBook Air.

        1. Jedit Silver badge

          "Tablets didn't look lke that before the iPad"

          http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2011/04/tablet-computers-as-seen-from-1994.html

          Not to mention the portable video screen used by Heywood Floyd in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The iPad wasn't an innovative design at all; it is the obvious design for the job it does. If you do your research, you will also see that the original iPhone didn't look too dissimilar to the HTC Touch and more significantly the LG Prada, which was released several months before the iPhone.

          (As for your comments on the MacBook Air, I shall ignore them as the blatant fanboi-ism that they are.)

          1. aThingOrTwo

            Intel Ultrabooks.

            It has nothing to do with being a "blatant" fan of anything.

            It seems you completely missed the move by intel to push the new "Ultrabooks" which they see as making up 40% of the the consumer notebook laptop market by 2010.

            Quote from the Wall Street Journal*

            “To date if you wanted that sleek design you had to buy a Mac,’ said Greg Welch, director of Intel’s Ultrabook group, in an interview last week. ‘There are people who want a PC in that form factor”

            Phones:

            Phone generally came in all shapes and sizes before the iPhone. Sliders, flip, keyboards etc. The N95 and Razr were big phones before the iPhone. Now look at the market and nearly all phones take the slim, slab form factor with large, Multi-touch capacitive screens.

            iPad:

            It comes to something when the iPad has to be compared to a science fiction fantasy. That wasn't a real product made in the real world with real cost and engineering constraints. Although there was not much of a tablet market before the iPad, the fact remains the few products available didn't look like the iPad. Not in the same way the HP TouchPad looks like an iPad.

  14. Randall Shimizu
    Meh

    Google hardware

    It's hard to say at this point if Google will hold on to the Motorola's hardware. Google could decide to sell tablet at or slightly above it's manufacturing costs to gain market share. The problem is whether the FTC will see this as unfair competition. Since manufacturing & design is not Google's core business this will present serious challenges for them.

  15. jai
    Facepalm

    Kids and the future

    so, kids are buying Android phones now because they're cheap

    And in the future, they'll grow up and then they'll still be buying Android? That's an incredible weak argument. Not least, because all of those "soccer dads" as you call them, when they were younger, would have owned Nokias and Ericssons when they were kids. And that really worked well for those two companies this year didn't it?

    (plus, would it hurt you so much to proof read your article before submitting it? Just a little bit, to catch the typos? kthxbye)

  16. jai

    in contrast

    funny though, your article appears to contradict Mr Orlowski's article from earlier today which suggests Google's purchase was pointless

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/15/google_motorola_the_poker_chip_that_cant_be_redeemed/

  17. Gary Riches
    FAIL

    ... Booooooo

    You mean just like how the cheap Android tablets beat the iPad 1 last year?

  18. Andrew Baines Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Graphs are all very well

    BUT - the arrival of Android, and the availability of cheaper Blackberries (Curve) changed the market out of all recognition.

    We no longer have the concept of a premium mobile phone - just basic, and smartphones. OK, so Nokia has been the biggest loser in that battle, but would the people buying cheap PAYG or £10pm Androids have ever been in the market for a £35pm Iphone? Unlkely.

    It's like going back 100 years and Mercedes Benz complaining about the new Fords - we don't recognise them as direct competitors any more, even though the cars do the same basic task.

    Paris Hilton, because she's premium, but performs the same basic task.

  19. Christoph Hechl
    Thumb Up

    Thank you.

    That last paragraph - companies should be forced to print it in every commercial and on every product they make.

  20. Jah

    Good Analysis, perhaps Google will attack as well

    I think with Apple, the best defence is attack, as Nokia has already proved. Google should be able to sue Apple until Apple agrees to some cross-licensing agreements.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Die, Apple, Die!

    Well, If Google can and chooses to use motorola's patent pool to take on Apple, it'll be one to watch. Due to the ongoing lawsuit between apple and moto, now technically apple is engaged in a lawsuit with google directly. Bring on the popcorn.

    Still, Apple had it coming, what with patenting a round edged square box with a button and then going after Samsung like they did.

  22. Kenny Millar

    Missing the point somewhat

    It's not about shipments!

    If you ship 1000x more phones than apple, but your purchasers don't use them for anything more than SMS and MSN then apple still wins. People buy android phones because they are cheap, yes, but they are much less usable. Google needs to get the whole owner experience up to the same level of satisfaction as apple. They can't do that while the platform is fragmented.

  23. Eponymous Cowherd
    Thumb Up

    Well said

    Apple, and it is, largely Apple, have created a situation that will result in more expensive and less well featured products.

    More expensive because someone has to pay for all of the litigation and re-engineering to work around patent restrictions.

    Less well featured because some restrictions cannot be worked around.

    And nobody should be so naive to believe that Apple won't find themselves hoist by their own petard. There are almost bound to be features in Apple products that are covered by competitor's patents.

    The consumer will be the ultimate loser here, the only winners being the patent lawyers.

    1. A J Stiles
      Flame

      Not quite

      "some restrictions cannot be worked around" -- that should never, ever happen. A patent is supposed to cover *one* means to an end. If a patent covers an end in itself, it is invalid, and needs to be challenged.

      What we desperately need is an IP bonfire -- a mass invalidation of patents and an extension to the Fair Dealing provisions of copyright law.

    2. stuff and nonesense

      #numbers and digits

      The US Patent Office has created this situation. It allows software patents.

      Code copyright is fine (there is more than one way to skin a cat) but patenting a function, no matter how it is coded, is wrong. (I wish I had a patent on the original sort routines)

      All the major US Tech companies are guilty of this to some extent.

      Apple sued Samsung under Trade Dress. Imagine buying a GM car that looked just like an existing Ford or a BMW that was to all intents and purposes outwardly identical to an existing Mercedes.

      BTW I have heard salesmen in a UK 'phone shop say to a parent and child "It looks like an iPhone and works like an iPhone - it's just cheaper" about the Samsung Galaxy. The kid wanted an iPhone... That's the reasoning (to my mind) behind the Apple lawsuit(s).

  24. Steve 149

    I'm not so sure

    So iPhones are doomed? Well all car owners aspire to own a Ford/ Vauxhall/ Nissan/ etc. That's why Audi/ Mercedes/ BMW Porsche/ Ferrari/ Aston have disappeared...

    1. Rattus Rattus

      The car analogies don't really fit

      Fashion analogies are much more appropriate in this case. People with more money than sense buy expensive designer label jeans in order to show them off. This is the Apple market.

      Other people who don't care about showing off the latest expensive shiny gear would instead buy plain jeans that offer the same function but don't have the expensive designer label, such as a half-eaten piece of fruit. This is the Android market.

  25. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A much better written article...

      Let me guess. You agree with Matt's viewpoint and disagree with Andrew's ...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      re: much better written article

      "which just seems to be a knee jerk opinion on what would have been researched and thought through by the intelligent people at Google!"

      It's generally been reported that the Motorola purchase was rushed through in five weeks, and the approach was made Google lost the Novell patents auction.

      Perhaps paying nearly three times what the latter cost was the smart move, but we’re going to see about that.

      1. Paul Shirley

        thats 1/2 the price/patent of the Nortell deal

        Paying 3x more for 6x more patents and getting a business thrown in on the side doesn't seem much of a mistake. Particularly with Microsoft trying to buy the same business, for altogether less pleasant reasons.

        Doesn't hurt hat Microsoft will now be paying patent license fees to Google ;)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          re: thats 1/2 the price/patent of the Nortell deal

          "Paying 3x more for 6x more patents and getting a business thrown in on the side doesn't seem much of a mistake. Particularly with Microsoft trying to buy the same business, for altogether less pleasant reasons

          Doesn't hurt hat Microsoft will now be paying patent license fees to Google ;)"

          I was responding to a comment that Google's move was completely well-thought out and that the people at the company are so intelligent that nothing, but nothing, can go wrong with the deal.

          As I say, this buy-out appears, on the basis of reports, to have been rushed through with two CEOs dealing with directly together – it might all go swimmingly, but the deal was struck in an incredibly short time. Additionally, as I say, the approach was made *after* Google lost the Novell patent auction – again, it might go well but when taken into account with the timeframe, things do look a little hurried and reactive.

          Although it’s been reported that Microsoft was eying up Motorola, the company had been trying to flog off the mobile end of things for two years or so – it’s not as if people have been tripping over to buy to the company. Again, Google might have made a great deal, or this is more of a knee-jerk reaction than the OP was claiming.

          As to the value of the patents, as I say, time will tell – at this stage, it’s far too early to say for sure. I’ve seen nothing convincing to suggest that Microsoft are going to have to dig deep in its pockets or that these patents are worth buying Motorola for, but I’m hedging my bets, rather than insisting that one company is smarter than another.

  26. Magnus_Pym

    Not patents, lawsuits

    Apple and Microsoft have been using patents to attack Android (and Linux) for a long time, They have to it's their only weapon against good free software. They have, so far, only attacked indirectly and Google has been criticised for not backing the hardware manufactures.

    It's like the battle has been raging far out to sea out of reach of Googles coastal forts. Well Google has just bought a battleship and is going to sail right into the battle zone. If Apple or Microsoft or whoever launch another oblique suit against Android Google can, and I suspect will wade in.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm not so sure

    So iPhones are doomed? Well all car owners aspire to own a Ford/ Vauxhall/ Nissan/ etc. That's why Audi/ Mercedes/ BMW Porsche/ Ferrari/ Aston have disappeared...

    1. JEDIDIAH
      Devil

      Fanboy silliness

      > That's why Audi/ Mercedes/ BMW Porsche/ Ferrari/ Aston have disappeared...

      Apple is comparable to none of these.

      They are a Ford with a slightly dressed up outer body and lawn furniture for seats.

      That's why they need to sue the competition.

  28. rahul
    FAIL

    Way to miss the point...

    ...Apple is not just building great devices; they are also building a (highly) profitable closed ecosystem.

    Google may put android on 10 devices for every one Apple device, but Apple is also building a high content base for content consumption devices.

    Android fragmentation is preventing this type of content buildup. Google may start purchasing and licensing content soon, but Apple is clearly the master of this game, and locks in consumers and vendors alike.

    Apple's moves are always multi-fold; they squeeze profits from every level in the product strategy, including manufacturing, distributing, hardware profits, software profits, content profits, etc. They can easily (especially considering their current cash surplus) forgo one avenue of profit long enough to make it unviable for other entrants, then resume where they left off. The fact that they have not done so yet only shows that they consider their position very stable.

    Cheap android devices are available, but any device that has near iPad capabilities is already pinched on price. Those that are cheap, don't have the performance (which is why Angry Birds is routinely patched to work on various sub-par Android devices). This also leads to IP theft, piracy and content oriented revenue loss.

    Current content providers will clearly prefer the Apple platform, since DRM protections, while not foolproof, are clearly more than what Android offers.

    For every one tech-oriented geeko who prefers an open platform, there are atleast a dozen non-techy types who don't even understand the term "walled garden".

    The regular innovations of Apple ensures that they have a steady stream of new devices; the media promotes these devices; and the old devices do not die, but have a resale value. So, while the consumer may change the device, all that happens is that Apple gains a new consumer, for both old and new content (as far as capability allows).

    Google's move may be a smart one, and may even generate enough revenue to subsidize it's purchase, but it is clearly far from being an Apple killer.

  29. bob's hamster

    Missing the point on Apple losing market dominance

    I always enjoy reading Matt Asay's articles, although I usually don't agree with alot of his arguments. This seems to contradict another item on El Reg which reckons that the patents Motorola holds are not particularly relevant to the Mobile phone market.

    Anyway, one thing Matt seems to ignore is that while Android manufacturers might make great products at very affordable price points, that isn't Apple's game. They have the resources to be a great innovator; don't forget they pretty much started/kick started the smartphone mass market, and tablet markets. It is inevitable that over time they will lose market share to "me too" products, but they will just move on to the next new market, dominate for a few years until they start to lose market share to other cheaper rival products following them, and then move on again.

  30. exitsec
    Linux

    Litigation costs

    Perhaps it would be informative to put up another graph on the number of lawsuits and the amount of money they're spending on Lawyers per company?

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like