Apr 072013
 

Android got another smash to the piñata that is its cohesiveness as a mobile platform administered to it by Facebook this past week. Mark Zuckerberg introduced the HTC First and its Facebook Home overlay of HTC’s Sense…errr…overlay as a way of getting users to turn to Facebook instead of Google to spend all their time. The phone will be cheap – $100 with 2 year contract – and its specs won’t move blood to any freetard naughty bits, but that’s obviously not who the target market for this device is. Facebook currently has twice as many mobile users as the United States has people. Some fraction of those 680+ million are going to be interested enough to buy a phone based on Facebook being the predominant input. Even more are going to download and use it: Facebook announced that Home will be available as a stand-alone app on the Google Play store.

As many people point out, Facebook Home isn’t an outright fork of Android in the spirit of Amazon’s Kindle HD devices. Siegler says Facebook is “spooning” Android, but that’s a snappy play on words that belies the truth of what this move actually is: a blatant attention grab away from Google’s own services. And let’s be clear: attention is a zero sum game. It may not have the same devastating effect on these services as an official fork, but judging by the hands-on I’ve seen and reviews I’ve read, it’s much more obtrusive than a skin and a serious problem for Google. The reason is that the same demographic where Google is realizing success with Android is the same low-to-middle end device market that’s going to be interested in Facebook Home. The HTC First (and other devices with Home pre-installed that will be announced later this year) won’t be a factor for people looking at an S4 vs. an iPhone 5, but it will be for people deciding between Android models like the Droid RAZR HD and Spectrum 2. Then there’s all the rest of the people who will download Home to their mobile devices.

So what the fuck is Google thinking by allowing this? It’s a good question. I think the answer is two-fold. First of all, Google already allowed Amazon – and currently allows OEMs – to manipulate Android in ways I imagine you’d have to date a gymnast to fully understand. For them to draw the line with Facebook – especially Facebook backed by an existing Android OEM – would put them in a weird spot. Secondly, Android, as we know, is a virus that needs a legion of carriers: more carriers = more money. 30% mobile engagement of Google services with a Facebook overlay (of an HTC overlay) is better than the 0% engagement Google would be sucking if Facebook were to engage Windows Mobile as a partner instead.

Samsung and Facebook are just the most recent examples of an unsettling phenomenon for Google: Android is becoming bastardized to the point of total brand dissolution, with fewer and fewer people showing an interest in digging through the OEM cruft to get to the things that make Google its money. Now Google has to contend with Facebook stealing their customers’ attention while riding Android right up Avenue B. Must really suck for some parasite to be siphoning coin off the work you put into a mobile OS, huh?

Karma’s a bitch.

Apr 052013
 

Facebook just had its turn in the fisting Google queue by joining hands with HTC to deliver a lariat to Android. I’ll have some more thoughts about that later, but I just wanted to say a few words about Microsoft’s pissy response to the news. The adorable Frank X. Shaw delivered a predictable “Yea, but we did it first” tantrum via The Official Microsoft Blog, citing the Microsoft’s Window Phone launch event in 2011 as being similar to that of the HTC First. Just like Bill Gates invented the iPad in 2001.

For a moment let’s set aside the premise that its antics in the 90’s should effectively shut Microsoft up about anyone copying from them until the end of time. There are some caterwaul-specific aspects of Shaw’s post I find particularly hilarious. First is that Microsoft was hardly the first OS to “Put People First”: they borrowed that metaphor pretty heavily from WebOS’s Synergy. Second, and perhaps more galling, is the fact that Facebook was pretty much the cornerstone of Microsoft’s strategy. Without Facebook integration, Windows Phone would have weaker legs than it already does.

One bonus bit of hilarity: Shaw’s choice of video to exemplify the fact that Facebook chose the same three words to launch their phone that Microsoft did in 2011 depicts Windows Phone 7.5 – aka “The Road to Nowhere“. Fitting that Shaw would brag about “Putting People First” by linking to a promo for an OS that upgraded buyers of Nokia 900s by making them grab their ankles 3 months after they bought their Windows Phones.

Then again, hasn’t that always been Redmond’s way of “Putting People First”?

Jan 242012
 

It gets hard to talk about how insanely profitable Apple is – every quarter. Aside from running the risk of disappointing retarded analysts, as was the case last quarter when they nonsensically decided to go shithouse the quarter before a new iPhone was released, there’s this feeling that it can’t possibly last. That feeling was exacerbated this morning, as the Street started pushing estimates up hours before the earnings call.

Apple’s response to the hype made all of their prior performances look like dainty appetizers. I’ll try to put it in context with a couple of comparisons.

This quarter, Apple had:

  • Profit equal to its revenue 5 quarters ago and $3 billion dollars more than Google’s revenue from last quarter.
  • Twice Microsoft’s revenue and net income.
  • The 4th largest reported profit of any company – ever – and the only non-petroleum company in the top 20 all-time.

Macworld has some pretty jaw-dropping graphs that detail the carnage.

While knock-off iPhone expectoraters like Samsung keep poking fun at Apple with their shitty advertising, there is a kernel of truth to them. People form lines for Apple’s kit – 37 million iPhones and 15.5 million iPads this past quarter alone. Samsung sees no lines, and now they can’t even claim a unit sales advantage – even though they vomit a bazillion phones every quarter. Can’t wait to see your earnings this quarter, guys. I have a feeling you’ll be “HTC’d”.

Jan 132012
 

In an attempt to provide some unification to the cornucopia of ass that the apps in the Android Market resemble, Google announced a framework of design principles for the latest  version of the Android operating system. “Design principles” are a lot like “Mission Statements”: pretty words intended to signal some sort of unification, but really only as consequential as the means of enforcing them. And Google doesn’t really have the means. Samsung is going to continue with TouchWiz and HTC will keep slapping Sense over the base Android UI/UX. In terms of app developers, they fall into 3 camps. The vast majority produce cut-and-paste and/or knock-off shit and don’t give a whit about Android’s design principles. The ones who currently employ good design and make good apps for Android (both of them) are probably insulted by the principles’ obviousness, so it won’t effect them either. I suppose there is a small group of earnest developers seeking some direction that stand to benefit, so congrats to Google and artisan Matt Duarte on reaching those souls who are artistically gifted, yet in need of guidance.

This is Google’s latest attempt to address the rampant fragmentation that is encouraged on a Wild West platform like Android. If the mandated inclusion of the Holo theme on all ICS handsets is a stick, this is its analogous – and equally inconsequential – carrot. But I do hear ICS comes with some sweet new wallpapers.

I'd f*ck me.

Dec 202011
 

As common as the articles telling Apple what to do with its cash or making out Apple users to be members of some kind of cult is the story bitching about how the company defends its intellectual property. They usually travel from “Steve Jobs said great artists steal” to “Apple’s patents have no merit” in under 500 words. These articles just stop short of abolishing the practice of defending intellectual property and the current patent system, although every other word seems to say exactly that. These hit pieces pop up every time Apple files a lawsuit, so it wasn’t shocking to see it exhumed once one of Apple’s claims actually got some traction, which happened yesterday. The International Trade Council agreed that HTC infringed on one of the 10 patents subjected to the body in 2010 for “data detectors” – the hyperlinks that allow your iPhone to recognize dates and phone numbers and forward them to the appropriate apps – and gave HTC until April 19 of 2012 to engineer a workaround before its phones face an injunction in United States.

Mat Honan’s “If Apple Wins We All Lose” is an archtype of this kind of rhetoric, and it’s no surprise that it came from Gawker Media’s Gizmodo. It’s surprisingly worse than most of the word count published on this topic, which makes it kind of fun to take apart.

Yesterday’s news that courts had ruled against HTC in favor of Apple was a tidy little victory for Apple. But HTC is just an initial skirmish in a much larger fight. The real war is against Android, and if Apple wins that, we’ll all lose.

Apocalyptic topic sentence echoing apocalyptic byline: check.

The iPhone was like nothing that came before. And Apple should be able to protect its innovations and intellectual property. But the Cupertino Crew doesn’t just want to do that; it wants to kill Android. It wants Google’s mobile OS to go away. No settlements. No licenses. Dead. Jobs said as much, very explicitly.

This philosophical “middle ground” between the ability to protect one’s intellectual property and not having a patent system has to be restated several times throughout pieces like this. It’s what I like to call the “standard disclaimer”. Even though every other word in the article is going to be a slam against both the patent system and of Apple’s claims within the system, because the author doesn’t want to come off as a (bigger) moron, he’s obligated to pay it lip service.

There are two avenues Apple can take to achieve this victory: the marketplace and the courts. I’d be all for Apple winning fair and square in the marketplace. It’s okay for consumers to decide the victor in this fight. But it’s not okay for a handful of judges and lawyers to dictate the direction of technology. For Apple to win in the marketplace—and I mean total dominance here, the kind of thermonuclear war that an apoplectic Jobs described in Walter Isaacson’s biography—it would require both innovation on a massive scale, and real price competitiveness. Realistically, that’s not going to happen. It’s already impossible, at least in the next three years. Android’s foothold with consumers is already too strong. Its phones are too inexpensive, and Google and its device manufacturing partners are too committed to Android for it to fail completely.

So the marketplace and the courts are mutually exclusive venues–the only 2 options for companies to achieve market dominance? Interesting. I always imagined the marketplace as a complex organism subject to many axes of competition, both quantitative and qualitative – price, quality, design – to name a few. Some of these axes can be protected by intellectual property law. The details of how this property is protected will always be up for debate, but you can’t make an argument that no system is better than a broken one. Apple is a company with a history of being fucked over on the intellectual property playing field. Their biggest mistake was made with Microsoft, a mistake that was exploited during the absence of their leader. That mistake factors largely into how Apple perceives the value of its IP and the lengths it is willing to go to protect it.

So that leaves the courts, where Apple keeps pressing its case—largely against device manufacturers. That’s not okay. The patent system is broken. Deeply, and profoundly so. The system that was created to foster and protect innovation, now serves to strangle it dead. Apple has real innovation. And real invention. So why act like a cheap patent troll, taking advantage of a body of under-qualified legal professionals to make decisions about which technologies consumers will be able to use? Does that bother anyone else?

Again, Apple is not responsible for how “broken” the patent system is in this country. Its only choices are:

1. To defend its intellectual property.
2. Not to defend its intellectual property.

If Apple does not defend its patents, it will forfeit future rights do so. This is common knowledge in all businesses that are can be governed by patents, and it’s certainly not “trolling”. It seems as though Honan saying that because the system is, in his opinion, broken, that Apple has no right to defend its innovations. This rhetorical masturbation has become the trademark of Gizmodo’s writing.

Granted, the iPhone was a sea change. So was the iPad. And Apple ought to be able to protect the innovations and intellectual property that set those devices apart. If Apple was only competing on iron-clad patents—if it was just forcing its competitors to think way out side of the box, that would be great for innovation. But it’s not. Apple is playing the same stupid games everyone does in the patent wars today.

Here we go again with the Apple deserves to defend property/Apple doesn’t serve to defend this property. Apple subjected 10 patents – patents that were granted by the USPTO – for consideration by the ITC. One of them was found to be infringed upon. Is Honan’s stance that none of these patents merit protection? Apparently they don’t rise to the “iron-clad” standard that is the foundation of…oh, I guess this “iron-clad” proviso doesn’t exist in any of this country’s current patent law. Could it be that Mat Honan is making up legal terms in an attempt to generate interest on a topic that has been beaten to death, resurrected and beaten to death again about 500 times?

A little bit about patents: For something to be patentable, it must be (or at least it should be) novel and non-obvious. You should not be able to find existing examples of it in prior art—in other words, when you look at the history of similar products, whatever you’re patenting needs to be unique.

I admit I laughed out loud at that. Mat Honan, obviously an officer of the USPTO, is going to educate us about patent law. Allow me to secure my bifocals and Number 2 pencil.

Now, certainly, some of Apple’s good stuff is novel. No one had ever seen anything like the iPhone prior to 2007. Yet clearly some of the things Apple is gunning to protect are, well, obvious.

Oh wait – you mean that’s it? That’s your entire lecture? Jesus and I thought I needed to go to school for this. I thought there was an entire government agency dedicated to this – one which apparently didn’t share Dr. Honan’s opinion about what’s patentable.

What Apple won the rights to in this most recent HTC case, was basically a patent on the act of recognizing patterns and acting on them—like when you tap on a phone number in an email to launch your dialer and make a call. Thing is, Google was recognizing numerical strings (including phone numbers) and tailoring search results to them long before the iPhone came out. Dating back to at least 2006 (maybe earlier) you could enter a UPS tracking code into Google, and it would parse that number, ping UPS and return tracking information at the top of the search results. It would do the same thing with phone numbers. It basically did everything the iPhone did, short of make calls. Was it non-obvious for a mobile phone to do what a search engine was doing? I don’t know. I certainly think it’s debatable, yet this is the issue that Apple just beat HTC on.

Actually, some people that know what they’re talking about when they get behind a keyboard provided a concise history of the ‘647 patent, one that predates whatever Honan thought Google was doing with UPS tracking codes. As a matter of fact, it was granted in 1999. If journalistic integrity was valued in the blogosphere, this catastrophic misstatement of fact would put a site like Gizmodo out of business. Sadly, the “durrrr Google did something like this first” smoking gun is as factual as the author gets.

Likewise, the iPad also had many novel features—like that genius subtle backside curve that makes the device so easy to pick up off a flat surface. But if you look at what Apple wants to get Samsung to drop—the bezel and the rounded corners and the rectangular shape and even the color—it’s clear that Apple wants Samsung to try to make something that goes against good design principles established well before Apple rolled out the iPad.

This is not what Apple did. It is what your site’s flametarded editor said, illustrated by flametarded Photoshops to depict Apple in the worst possible light at the expense of the facts. If you’re interested in what Apple was actually trying to do when it made recommendations to Samsung about how it could change the design of its tablet so that it didn’t infringe on the iPad, you would know that if Samsung had decided to do one thing differently, it would not be infringing. The Xyboard? Not infringing. Apple did not say “do all of these things at once”. I swear Gizmodo is trying to make the internet stupider one post at a time.

I think a lot of this can be blamed on Apple’s past history. It lost big in the courts once before. And it’s determined not to do so again. In some ways, Apple is becoming the George Wallace of technology companies. In 1958 George Wallace lost the Democratic gubernatorial primary in Alabama to his opponent John Patterson, who campaigned on a more virulently racist pro-segregation platform than Wallace had. In response, Wallace said he’d never be out-segged again. Nor was he. In 1962, Wallace stormed into the Governor’s office and national stage on a campaign of “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Apple’s Wallace moment came in 1994, when it lost a massive legal battle after the courts ruled that it could not prevent Microsoft and HP from shipping computers with graphical user interfaces that used the desktop metaphor. Apple argued that its copyrights were being violated, but the court decided Apple’s copyrights weren’t afforded patent-like protections.

This paragraph actually elicited a verbal response from me. That response was “Wow”. It’s like the entire universe of comparative anecdotes compressed into an infinitely small point and then exploded with the intensity of a billion novae. What the fuck does a racist politician’s segregation platform have to do with a company defending its IP? The best I can come up with is that Apple is supposed to be riding an unpopular practice (defending Honan’s “softer than iron-clad” IP) harder the second time it had the opportunity to do so (the iPhone) after not having the opportunity the first time (against Microsoft).

(Of course, it didn’t help that Apple wasn’t the first company to ship a computer with a graphical user interface, mouse and a desktop metaphor. That was Xerox, which had all that on its Alto. In fact, the original plan for the Macintosh business unit was written surreptitiously on a Xerox Alto during off-hours at Xerox PARC. So it goes.)

It’s curious how, after claiming to have read Steve Jobs’s biography, Honan could misstate the Xerox PARC anecdote so egregiously. Misrepresenting the PARC story is fundamental to those wishing to dismiss any claims Apple may have on its intellectual property. After all, didn’t they rip off poor Xerox?

But something changed in between the time the Macintosh was released in 1984 and when the iPhone rolled out in 2007: software patents. They weren’t widely applied until the 1990s. This happened to co-incide quite nicely with Steve Jobs’ return to Apple. And by the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, it was game on. And so, in 2007, when Steve Jobs announced the iPhone, after scoring big points with the crowd on the iPhone’s features, he did a little endzone dance for the competition, crowing that the company had patented the Bejesus out of its fancy new phone. It had learned its lesson in fighting Microsoft on copyright rather than patents, and was clearly determined to out-patent anyone else in the then-nascent smartphone market. Now we’re seeing the fruits of those patents. They’ve afforded Apple some significant victories. But if you look at the past as prologue, as Apple seems to be doing, I don’t think it’s so clear that it would ultimately be good for Apple to kill Android in the courts. And it certainly won’t help consumers.

In other words, Apple felt it had been duped and out-maneuvered by Microsoft, so it wanted to take whatever legal measures were available to defend its intellectual property with the iPhone in 2007. I guess Honan gets paid by the word. At least I hope he does.

Try this thought experiment: Imagine Apple had been successful in its suit against Microsoft. Imagine Microsoft had been prohibited from shipping Windows 2.0 or Windows 3.0—or, by God, Windows 95—without licensing the hell out of it from Apple. Where would we be? Without Windows there to pressure Apple to Build Something Better, things would be very different in Cupertino today. After it lost its case with Microsoft and saw its market share dwindle to nothing, Apple had to innovate like crazy. Had Apple won, it never would have had to transition from the System 7-era to Mac OS X. It never would have had to buy NeXT. It never would have had to bring prodigal son Steve Jobs back into the fold. Without Mac OS X, there would be no iOS. And without iOS, no iPhone, no iPad.

/takes massive bong hit

So you mean, like, intellectual property rights actually kill innovation? I mean, that’s like totally the opposite effect of what the people designing the system want it to have, maaaaaaaan! Imagine that…under my fingernails…a tiny universe might exist! Thought experiment maaaaaaan!

George Wallace used segregation as a bludgeon, quite effectively, to win elections. But today, it’s clear that he ultimately injured himself, Alabama, and the nation as a whole for very many years to come.

Keep banging that drum, Mat. I know your totally relevant recounting of an obscure southern election jammed into the mold of IP defense tactics is going to make the Harvard Business Review any day now. Or Worst Fucking Analogies Ever Quarterly. One of those two.

I’m all for seeing Apple defend its intellectual property. But Android is a healthy force in the marketplace. If Apple can destroy it there, more power to Tim Cook and company. But if Apple beats Android in the courts rather than the marketplace—if it out-segs Google instead of out-innovating it—that may be great for Apple, but it will be bad for society, bad for technology, and ultimately bad for Apple.

Third time’s a charm, I guess. You’re not for Apple defending its property, Mat. You’re for a generalized defense of intellectual property based on some criteria you don’t even define very well. But please, feel free to squawk like a racist Eric Schmidt with your “patents are the antithesis of innovation in the marketplace” horseshit.

And of course, the great irony is that so much of the amazing innovation that Apple pulled off over the past three decades can be traced back to its willingness to swipe ideas from Xerox. Steve jobs was fond of quoting Picasso, saying “good artists copy, great artists steal.” If Apple does succeed in crushing Android in the courts, where will it get its next great idea? My guess is that it won’t come from a lawyer.

So there’s your wrap-up, which touches on the mandatory “iron-clad” talking points present in any piece that slags Apple for defending its patents: a misrepresentation of the Xerox PARC story and the standard out-of-context quote from Jobs about Picasso, wrapped up with a quip about how ironic it all is.  Where will the next great piece about Apple, Android and the intellectual property landscape in this country come from? My guess is that it won’t come from Mat Honan.

Aug 162011
 

If you’ve watched any Discovery Channel at all, you’re familiar with the “Serengeti takedown” at the end of a chase. The large cat has its jaws locked around the throat of the antelope as it thrashes wildly before the darkness closes in. HTC should be able to identify strongly with that image.

It’s been a pretty bad week for the Taiwanese company. They’re fresh from the news that their BFFs at Google just played them – and the rest of the suckers locked into Android as their shartphones OS – by purchasing Motorola for $12.5 billion. Apple has a shitload of patents hung on them and two of them have already been upheld by the ITC.  But HTC is not done thrashing, as a thorough search of their sock drawers has yielded yet more patents to throw at Apple. If you want to burn your eyes out through the combined effects of patent language and appaling diction, the USPTO links at MacRumors will certainly accommodate you.

Thrash all you want, HTC. It’s not going to change the ending. It never does.

Aug 152011
 

Unless you’ve been enjoying an extended conjugal visit, you’ve read that Google made a $12.5 billion bid for Motorola’s hardware group, known as Motorola Mobility. You may remember Motorola as the company that made the RAZR 10 years ago, only to be left sucking on a tailpipe as a generic Android licensee ever since. Analysts think this is primarily about acquiring Motorola’s patent portfolio, which contains somewhere north of 10,000. I don’t know what else it could possibly be about, given that Google has never run a tech hardware business – a pretty mediocre one at that  – and has no intention to start.

Motorola is one of several major shartphone manufacturers to have a partnership with Google for their Android phone OS, so you’d think there might be a little friction when one of the litter is suddenly brought into direct contact with The Tit. But you wouldn’t know it by what these companies had to say about the move. But beneath the thin veneer of a cut-and-pasted Mountain View press release lies the truth. Let’s try and filter out what these hardware executives are really trying to say:

“We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.”– J.K. Shin, President, Samsung, Mobile Communications Division

“We thank our deities that someone may possibly step in and keep Apple from having our devices banned in every country on the planet.”

——————————

“I welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.” – Bert Nordberg, President & CEO, Sony Ericsson

“I green-lighted an Android phone?”

——————————

“We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.” – Jong Seok Park, Ph.D, President & CEO, LG Electronics Mobile Communications Company

“Did we green-light an Android phone?”

——————————

“We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem. -Peter Chou, CEO, HTC Corp.

“I bet if we were to insert some more words between ‘Google’, ‘Android’, ‘defending’ and ‘partners’, we could sound less like the other 3 guys.”

——————————

As you can see, Android’s manufacturers have been as successful differentiating their statements from each other as they have been differentiating their shartphone offerings.

Aug 122011
 

When Steve Jobs proclaimed of the iPhone during its introduction in 2007 “we patented the hell out of it”, he officially ushered in Apple’s new intellectual property worldview. Gone were the days of letting Microsoft abscond with your company’s UI. With iOS, things were going to be different.

The first shot across the bow was fired in March of last year when Apple filed suit against HTC claiming infringements on patents covering the iPhone’s interface and hardware. Then, in April, Apple filed against Samsung and their Galaxy devices, a suit that recently banned the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from being sold in Australia and the European Union. Samsung’s response to the EU preliminary injunction was an interesting variation of the “that’s not fair!” bellyaching popularized by Mountain View: they claimed they didn’t know anything about the suit and therefore did not have the chance to defend themselves. For anyone in possession of 2 firing neurons, Samsung’s protestation was suspect. Either the injunction was served without the company involved knowing anything about it or Samsung as a company was so incompetent as to not know they were the targets of an impending injunction that would ban the sale of a flagship device in 26 countries (the Netherlands has it own suit pending).

Thanks to the legwork of patent bloodhound Florian Mueller, we know that Samsung is not dumb, just dishonest. According to his FOSS Patent blog, Samsung filed a pre-emptive opposition to the preliminary injunction a week before it was issued, an action that obviously failed to persuade the court.

Samsung vows that 2 damning injunctions on the Tab aren’t that big of a deal and that they’ll continue to defend their innovation… blah blah…something about competing in the marketplace: the standard quote you get from Android manufacturers when they get pantsed.  Now that their product is banned on 2 continents, a smart company would use that as an excuse to stop embarrassing itself in the market with these turds.

Apr 142011
 

Despite Andy Rubin’s harsh words for fragmenters of the Android smartphone operating system, HTC decided to announce that the latest version of “Sense”, the UI overlay HTC uses ostensibly to differentiate itself from other Android phones, won’t work with anything but the newest dual-core processor shartphones.

HTC is the largest manufacturer of Android phones. Not only did they pfffff Rubin’s strong words about fragmenting the Android experience, they’re going to fragment their own fragment. Sounds like they didn’t exactly hear you, Andy. Better get back on that soapbox!

Mar 312011
 

In what’s being spun as Google taking control of its mobile operating system, the company has allegedly put carriers and manufacturers on notice: no more screwing with the Android experience. If you do, you stand to be cut out of “most favored nation” status, which may lead to delays in Android updates (hard to imagine that getting worse) or possible exclusion from Android’s early-access program entirely, a dick move that would essentially render an Android device (more) DOA in a market where product turns over every month. Because the rhetoric seemed to work so well for Apple – even though its the antithesis of the “open source” talking point Andy Rubin has been chatting up – the move is designed to protect consumers against fragmentation. But Android is all about “open”. Unless you’re a tablet maker. Or a phone maker/carrier who doesn’t play ball by Mountain View’s rules. Continue reading

  • RSS
  • Twitter