- Posts tagged Google
- Explore Google on posterous
Steve Jobs answers Android UX designer's question
In this interview with Matias Duarte, the head of user experience for Android, I was struck by something the author observed:
"What is the soul of the new machine?" The words are emblazoned across Matias’ laptop display.
It struck me because it sounded familiar, as if that question had already been asked and answered. And it was. By Steve Jobs:
In his WWDC keynote a few weeks ago, Steve Jobs said the following. “You know, if the hardware is the brain and the sinew of our products, the software in them is their soul.”
When Duarte is asked if that's the first time anyone at Google ever asked that question, he replies:
“I don’t think anybody ever asked about the soul,” he answers in a very matter-of-fact way, “This was my question, it was the question I challenged the team with.”
Right. Maybe the team didn't see Jobs' WWDC keynote.
Ouch! Google document proposes giving Motorola time-to-market advantage for Android devices
Here's the text of the highlighted passage:
Do not develop in the open. Instead, make source code available after innovation is complete
- Lead device concept: Give early access to the software to partners who build and distribute devices to our specification (ie, Motorola and Verizon). They get a non-contractual time to market advantage and in return they align to our standard.
Court papers confirm what most people already knew, but what some OEMs (HTC, LG, etc.) were hoping wasn't true. Google intends to give lead time advantage to some hardware makers over others. Yes, the Motorola purchase wasn't just about patents.
Google and Motorola's Patents [UPDATED]
The problem, of course, is that if Motorola had a savior set of patents, it wouldn’t have been one of the first targets of Microsoft. And if Motorola’s patent portfolio were really that dangerous, Apple would have settled quickly, not dragged out patent countersuits of its own. Apple settled with Nokia pretty quickly…
Everyone's talking about the number of patents (17,000, with more in review), but not about what they cover. I suspect few of Motorola's patents relate to modern smartphone technology or UI because Motorola hasn't been making them for long, and they use Android.
If Motorola's patents haven't worried Microsoft or Apple up to now, it doesn't change much that they're now in Google's possession.
[UPDATE:] This post today re-iterates my point:
Motorola Mobility's portfolio has failed to deter, and it has so far failed to make any meaningful headway in litigation. Motorola Mobility is on the losing track against the very two companies Google says those patents will provide protection from.
Jeff Bezos' Open Letter on Patents
Despite the call from many thoughtful folks for us to give up our patents unilaterally, I don't believe it would be right for us to do so. This is my belief even though the vast majority of our competitive advantage will continue to come not from patents, but from raising the bar on things like service, price, and selection -- and we will continue to raise that bar. We will also continue to be careful in how we use our patents. Unlike with trademark law, where you must continuously enforce your trademark or risk losing it, patent law allows you to enforce a patent on a case-by-case basis, only when there are important business reasons for doing so.
Translation: No, we won't be giving up ours, but we need major patent reform because Amazon plans to release an Android tablet soon.
Forbes on Google's charge of "bogus" patents
What is really “bogus” here is Google’s political argument that the DOJ should somehow become Constitutional Convention, Congress, USPTO and Federal Court all rolled into one in order to grant Google an effective pardon for its widespread infringement of patents — under some novel self-serving interpretation of antitrust law.
The Apple Patent Advantage
You get the same result either way, but Apple's patent covers the only way that looks and feels intuitive… If scrolling stops though the finger keeps moving, many people intuitively press their finger more firmly onto the screen because it's almost as if the device wasn't reacting.
Examples like this are why I feel that, unlike Microsoft, Apple will not license many of its patents Android is found to infringe. Apple doesn't want the money, they want the UX advantage.
Microsoft and Apple, blah, blah, blah. Will someone please talk about Google's role in all this?
Microsoft wants to make Android more expensive, Apple wants to make it less usable
This is nonsense.
- Microsoft doesn't want to make Android more expensive, they simply want to charge manufacturers for Microsoft IP. What the manufacturer charges the consumer is their business.
- Apple doesn't want to make Android less usable, they simply don't want manufacturers using Apple IP. What a manufacturer uses (dare I say, innovates?) instead is their business.
- What Google wants is to make Android as cheap and usable as possible by letting manufacturers use, for free, what's not theirs, and then rail against the sky when they're called on it.
Microsoft and Apple wouldn't be in a position to directly impact Android at all if Google hadn't ignored the property rights of others as they've done in the past.
These are perfectly valid approaches for Microsoft and Apple to take. It's no surprise Microsoft chose licensing, it aligns with their business model. Apple's business model is generally one of not licensing, which would also be no surprise. In either case these companies are not only within their rights, it'd be ridiculous for them not to protect their property.
So can we quit acting like Microsoft and Apple are some sort of schoolyard bullies, and instead place the blame squarely where it belongs? Google should know that when you take a chance in the rush to market, maybe you get caught.
