Comment Re:Seriously (Score 1) 294
Just because YOU have described it that way doesn't make it valid. Google has a legitimate, and indeed more sustainable, business model. Deriving revenues from royalties on the platform (hardware / OS) is a loser of a business model because the margins on the platform will be constantly driven downwards. Telecom carriers routinely give away the phones to make money on data/voice services (with 2 and 3 year contracts). Google's approach to make the platform ubiquitous and make money on ads and content is simply an extension of their core business to the mobile space.
No one's deriving money from royalties—Apple is literally selling customers iPhones, and Microsoft is making OEMs license Windows. Google makes their money from advertising; Android is a loss leader for them. It is definitely a legitimate business model, but "more sustainable"? Please. Charging people money for the things you've created is the oldest business model in the world, and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.
Also: telecom carriers do not give away phones, they're subsidized into the cost of the contract. It might be free up front, but you're actually paying for it every month (this is why termination fees exist: because if you terminate your contract early, you have to pay off the rest of the phone). The phone manufacturers get paid every cent of what that "free" phone costs. Sure, it goes down in value over time, but what piece of technology doesn't?
I'm sure Google would be fine if MS, Apple and Oracle retaliated in the market place with better products and services, but instead they chose to become patent trolls (see below).
MS and Apple have retaliated in the marketplace with products and services. "Better" is arguable, but you can't say their efforts to compete hinge on patent litigation; it's simply not true. Furthermore, they're not "patent trolls"—you can disagree with their use of patent litigation, but as they are actively developing and selling their products, they are not trolling.
It's almost certain than ANY large software product that does anything useful will infringe on some software patent. Google's choice NOT to license Sun's Java patents or not to simply buy Sun Microsystems is more indicative of Google's believe that any patents Android infringes are invalid or worthless.
Right, and if they know that Android infringes on someone else's intellectual property it's their responsibility to license it! This is the real world. Whether you believe software patents should be valid or not, the fact is they're legal right now. Google can't take a stand on principle and expect to get off scott-free.
No one's blaming Google for thinking software patents suck. They're blaming them for trying to get for free what everyone else has to pay for.
It goes to your point above - how does an entrenched market player respond to a disruptive technology . MS was late to the party and ineffective with it's Windows Phone 7. Sun (now Oracle) also missed the boat. They failed miserably to make J2ME relevant for the next generation of smart phones and their strategy to generate "field of use" royalties from the supposedly "open" platform was already driving handset makers such as Nokia to higher performance, royalty free platforms. So after failing to compete in the market place, Oracle and Microsoft chose to become patent trolls instead.
You don't understand what a patent troll is (see above). Whether or not the platforms are "open" is irrelevant. Microsoft, Apple and Oracle are all actively developing and selling products.