Re: Android dominance continues

Indeed. Android has replaced the crappy feature phones at the mid to low end of the market as the default phone option. That gives it massive market share, but this is the low margin market where the manufacturers are lucky to make a profit at all. Not the market you want to go after, unless you want to shout "market share up! revenues up! But we made a loss."

You can see the "real" smartphone market numbers if you look closely. One good measure is app usage - if you buy a phone as a smartphone (and not a feature phone replacement) you use apps a lot. The figures here still show apple ahead, especially if you look at the financial numbers - iOS apps make way more money. (And people wonder why WWDC sold out so fast?)

Re: "One of our biggest challenges has been keeping 128GB Surface Pro in stock," Hall said.

Yes, I certainly do. Rumour has it they've had massive difficulty renting additional warehouse capacity fast enough to take the shipments coming in, because they're going into stock and not leaving.

Why would they switch to bada? It's much more likely that they'll fork android.

That way they take control of their own OS, and they can start rolling out their own maps, email, search and whatever else, taking a big chunk of business from google in the process. They're big enough now that it's viable to do so, and it would bring in a chunk of extra cash while reducing a risk for the company (relying on somebody else's software isn't a good move).

I suspect google are very worried indeed :)

Re: "Adobe for its proprietary approach to Flash."

I wonder how different things would be if adobe had focused on making flash lean, fast and secure? Nobody really cared that it was proprietary back then, but a lot started caring when it became obvious it was slow, battery draining and responsible for a whole lot of security issues. I think that's what really focused people on the fact that we had a single company doing all the work on a major web standard - and ballsing it up.

Re: Cui Bono...Apple?

I think apple want to buy imagination - but intel want to avoid that because they need imagination's GPUs in some of the chips. Hence apple buying a big chunk, and intel buying a bigger chunk as a signal.

Re: One really needs to try before commenting

It works both ways. I do love a gadget that feels like a solid lump of steel - it feels good. The iphone 4/4s were like that, and the ipad 3 is like that. On the other hand, it's good to have something lightweight that doesn't give you arm cramp or weigh your trousers down heavily on one side.

I'd say low weight is definitely best for a tablet. The mini is a massive improvement, but I'd still like it to weigh less. On a phone, it's a mix - the iphone 5 feels *too* light in hand to me, but just right in pocket. The 4s was right in the hand, too heavy in the pocket.

Re: Bollocks !

I think they actually did - isn't that what the other court case that's in the news this week is about? MS certainly did. I guess it's difficult though to know when to sue in a case like this - presumably motorola didn't want it to go to court, as they would know what the risks were (the court forces a license agreement, they get some money but lose the 'offensive weapon' aspect of the patents). In that case, they would want to delay while at the same time attacking with their own offensive court battles, so they'd 'continue' negotiations rather than let them break down.

Re: Hey?

"So the FTC wants the US gov to sue Google for something that hasn't happened yet (Minority Report style)?"

It's not something that hasn't happened - it's something they've been trying vigorously to do but have simply failed at so far. It's like trying to kill somebody with an axe, but a nearby pair of policeman stop you... you're still going to be in a bunch of trouble even though you failed, and even if it was entirely justified because it was a politician :)

Re: Bollocks !

It's not this simple. If the patent holder doesn't want to offer a license, they can offer a license at unacceptable rates, and then negotiate without intention to grant a license. Following your suggestion, the licensees (apple + MS in this case) would go to court... and wait a few years, releasing no products in the meantime. In theory you're right, but in practice the courts just don't work well enough for it to happen.

Because it's a FRAND patent, the patent holder will have to grant a license, and the licensees will have to pay a fair rate. But if they can't agree to that, the courts have to settle it - in this case, years after products ship.

MS and Apple have both asked the courts to force a license agreement, and they've both sued motorola for not keeping their FRAND promises so far as I know (there are a few court cases on this coming up soon). Once the courts have decided an appropriate fee (and any appeals have happened), google will be paid in full.

On the other side, what google could have done is the same as what apple + MS have done: ask the courts to set a fair price. Why didn't they do that? Because they want to use these patents as leverage, so they can force MS + apple into a cross-licensing agreement and get access to MS + Apple's patented tech. They don't have strong enough patents to fight this battle without SEPs unfortunately, because apple + MS have simply been around a lot longer building up a war chest.

Re: Hey?

No judges have granted an injunction - although it's come close in germany (where the laws on FRAND patents are way out of line compared to the rest of the world). It's possible this will still happen in Germany, but everywhere else google/motorola (and also samsung, who also tried this and are also under investigation) have failed every time they've tried to use standard essential patents.

There's also an issue in the US, where one of the trade organisations has the power to ban products based on patent violations, but doesn't have anything to do with anti-trust rules and therefore could ban a product even if it's an anti-trust violation.

Re: Bollocks !

There's a difference between what apple/ms are doing and what google are doing.

Apple + MS are telling google to stop using their 'frivolous' (some are :) patents or pay up. Goole are doing the same for their non-frivolous patents. Apple + MS are suing over patents that can be worked around - i.e. if Google aren't happy about it, they can simple remove or change features like 'rubber-band scrolling' from android, stick their middle finger up and walk away.

Google are suing over *essential* patents though. Apple + MS can't really remove 3G, WiFi and h264 from their products - if they did, nobody would buy them.

So what MS + apple are doing is trying to get a competitive advantage (apple) or some cash (MS). What google is doing is trying to block competitors from the market.

See why there's a problem, and the regulators are getting involved (in the EU as well as the US)?

Re: Double standards

Apples patents are for stuff Samsung is free to leave out or use an alternative, and apple are free to charge what they want or refuse a license - they've never promised to give them to anyone at all.

Samsungs patents are required for standard things like 3G, wifi and h264, and apple MUST implement them. Samsung promised to license them at fair, reasonable rates to anyone who needs them.

If apple refuses to license we might lose rubber banding or something and apple gain some competitive advantage. If Samsung refuses their competitors *cant make phones at all* and they can effectively control the whole market.

See the difference now? Luckily the regulators can :)

Re: Didnt Pre-ordered mine last night

The entry level ipad is actually the iPad 2 at £329. The surface should be priced between the 2 I reckon if they're direct competitors, but are they?

Re: Magnetic power supply...

It violates a LOT of Apple patents. But then apple violate a load of MS' too. Thus suing would be pointless and they have an agreement in place that let's them do this kind of thing.

Re: Missing the biggest part of the story

I doubt that's the case here (although I've not followed this particular case either). In other cases, samsung's claims have indeed been rejected because of double dipping (and that's likely why the 4S and ipad 3 aren't targeted - they switched wireless chip supplier at some point and the new supplier is already licensed).

In all the recent cases though, it's basically come down to the fact that samsung are asking for 2.4% of the retail cost of the device (add the other few hundred patent holders at that kind of figure and you can see why that's totally unacceptable), while apple are offering amounts similar to what they're paying other SEP holders.

(And yes, apple have confirmed that in court, have confirmed they're licensing SEPs from other companies, and Samsung have failed to answer the question "who else is paying 2.4%?" It's a patent hold-up.)

Re: Rights and Licenses

"Will the people who pushed this through for acceptance and those who accepted it find that their Christmas presents are large and expensive for the next few years."

You'll find their christmas presents pretty regular i suspect. The license fees for these standards are pretty low (otherwise nobody would bother with the standard). And the money gets split between a *lot* of companies, many of which spent plenty of time to come up with the goods.

Also, the value of these patents is set before the standard is agreed. If I invent some new way of efficiently storing pixels and patent it, that could get used. Problem is, there are about a million other ways of storing pixels, so my patent isn't worth a whole lot. I might get $0.0001 per device sold - enough to make a passable income long term, but far from massive.

It's the patents that *don't* go into a standard that can be worth a lot, because the owners haven't agreed to give them away to anyone who wants them for a minimal price. But then, if they're not required by a standard you're not forced to use them.

Not almost exactly the same as an iPad? See: http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/18/tablet-design-before-after-the-ipad/ That's obviously an apple fan site, but look at the variety of pre-ipad tablets. Back then companies made some really interesting models, and there was plenty of innovation (and a truckload of ugly, but hey).

Now? I see sony doing some cool stuff (although it often fails badly in execution), and I see asus doing something cool with their dock. And possibly microsoft with their keyboard covers on the surface. Everyone else? They're just making generic ipad-like tablets.

Re: @Chris 19 "...android only provides about 20% of their income, compared to 80% for iOS."

That's probably a large part of it too. The same group of people buy audio, bmw and mercedes too, even though they could get a ford for less money.

The thing is though, it makes iOS the better platform by default. When I start planning a new project and look at the platforms, android offers less income for more work. I only consider it as either a secondary platform. Therefore my apps appear either only or first on iOS, and the iOS version gets a lot more attention. Most developers are doing exactly the same.

If you consider the platform to be something you run apps on (which after all is the real point of a smartphone), the quality of the apps is critical - and iOS ends up way ahead.

Re: Vote with your Pounds

@jabuzz: What you wrote there is all kinds of wrong. Samsung agreed to license their FRAND patents at the pre-standand-setting cash value. They have to make a *cash* offer to apple, based on these pre-standards values. Apple do not have to hand over all of their patents just to get access to 3G. And they surely don't have to pay 2.4% of the retail value of the product as an alternative.

Besides, samsung have confirmed the number of companies they've signed up at the rates they were asking from MS and apple: zero. They had to give this info to the court, it's there in public court documents.

Both companies put out plenty of propaganda, don't believe any of it :)

Re: Vote with your Pounds

"How about you pick the one that makes a device that has the best trade off between desired features, actual features, and image conciousness."

I think that's the only way to do it. If you try and judge these companies on ethical grounds, you'll end up with a couple of tin cans and some string (from hemp that died of old age, naturally). Some are worse than others, that's about the best you can say.

Buy the phone that suits you. If it was a shameless clone of some other phone, or used some tech that some company patented before some other company, the courts will sort it out for you and some money will move from one numbered account to another in a few years time. If it turns out later that it wasn't a shameless clone, or that patent turned out to be a pile of crap, a different court will order money to go back the other way a few years later.

In other words, if you buy a phone from some company today, some other company might get your money anyway.

Re: Vote with your Pounds

Now that's a seriously tough one. Samsung are highly abusive with their patents, and are under investigation for FRAND abuse, so they're first to be crossed off the shopping list. Scratch motorola for the same reason.

Apple are at least on the right side of the line with anything FRAND related, but then we see about a billion lawsuits with "Apple Vs. " on the front cover, so I guess they're out.

Nokia are stepping up their efforts to sue everyone and their uncle, so lets count them out too.

Microsoft? They actually have the best attitude out of all the companies so far. They're even better than apple on FRAND, and unlike apple they're happy to license their patents rather than saying "this is all mine and you can't have it". They don't make phones unfortunately!

Then there's HTC and the like. HTC are hard to judge - they just don't have enough patents of their own to cause any serious damage. They've not been all that good when given a chance though.

RIM maybe?

Re: So if Apple paid nothing

If that was true, then I simply acquire a cheap FRAND patent (most of them earn very little, so this shouldn't cost too much). Then I contact apple, and tell them I want $1m per iPhone. There's no way they'll accept that, so they'll refuse.

And now you think it'll become a non-FRAND licensing agreement. In which case, I don't have to license it at all, and I can tell them to remove 3G from all iphones and ipads. Or I can charge whatever I like for a license, and charge them that $1m per phone I originally offered. And the courts will agree with me, because that's actually how regular patents get handled.

Somehow, I think you might be slightly wrong :D

The FRAND rate for a patent is based on the value it had BEFORE it was made part of the standard. That value is normally very low, because there's usually a bunch of alternative methods. Once it's in the standard, you have no choice but to use this exact method, so the patent is suddenly hugely important - which is why the value is locked down.

If Samsung have offered a license at non-FRAND rates (which apple estimates at $0.005 per device) then they've breached the terms of their FRAND agreement, and are possibly trying to commit market abuse (which they're being investigated for already).

Re: This has to stop.

@AC "I think he means that Samsung are attempting to sue Apple over FRAND patents. Which, ordinarily is frowned upon, quite rightly. However, what he fails to understand is this possibility..."

If that possibility was reality, then fair enough. The reality is more like LG asking for their usual 10p, apple paying it, then samsung + motorola asking for £100 each, apple saying that's a bit high, how about 10p, and samsung/moto refusing.

There's a ton of documentation that's made it out of the courts to show exactly what happened. Apple have made FRAND licensing offers, samsung + motorola have refused and asked for exorbitant fees. Apple are licensing other SEPs under FRAND terms from other companies. Samsung + moto haven't licensed to *anyone* under their "special deal" offers to MS + apple.

Re: This has to stop.

I don't know about a citation, but this is what the two sides are actually doing:

Apple: Trying to get rival products banned based on software, hardware and design patents. I.e. scrollbars that disappear when not in use? That's apple's invention, you're not allowed to use it. You can certainly say it's bad for progress, and classic nasty business tactics, and a lot of what they're arguing over shouldn't even be patentable in the first place. They're all patents that can be avoided - you don't HAVE to hide those scroll bars. You just end up with a shitty UI.

Samsung & google/motorola: A little bit of what apple is doing, but mostly they deal in FRAND patents. These cover things like 3G + WiFi data, voice calls, standard video formats. If you want a device that connects to the internet and plays videos, you MUST use these patents. Apple have to license them. The companies agreed to license them under FRAND, in exchange for them becoming part of the standard.

FRAND licenses work like this: You take the commercial value of the patent *before* it was included in the standard, and you agree to license at that rate to *anyone* who wants it. This value is normally very low before it's in the standard.

What samsung (and google/motorola) are doing is this: They're asking for 2.25-2.4% of the retail price of an iPhone or iPad (or xbox, or even a PC). Given hundreds of such patents in a standard, and multiple standards needed for any of these devices, you're talking multiples of the retail value of the product just in patent license fees.

No sane company can accept that, an iPad would cost thousands. But on the other hand, you can't build a modern device without using the patents. Samsung + motorola are trying to use this tactic, and then when the company doesn't license, they try to get the device banned.

If they're allowed to do that, they can obviously control the market. So far they haven't been allowed to do that - no court has actually banned a product, and the EU and US are investigating motorola (think only the EU is investigating samsung, but I might be wrong) over anti-trust. It could backfire in a big way, we'll have to wait and see.

I don't think market abuse is actually their goal btw. It's more that apple has a MUCH stronger patent portfolio that samsung want access to (a lot of android is unfortunately covered by apple + MS patents - hence MS get tons of license money, while apple asks for bans as they don't want to license). If they could use FRAND patents as a 'weapon', it's a very powerful one, and apple would be forced to hand over the goods.

(Oh, and yes, I'm sure bits of iOS and WP7 are covered by android patents - but the scales aren't in android's favour, so apple / MS inevitably win patent disputes in the long term).

(And yes, the only company that doesn't look all that evil here is microsoft, who end up having the fairest patent policy out of these companies. Who would've seen that coming?!)