I cant see this ending the dominance of the iPhone. Yes ending patent disputes would free up more innovation from all concerned.

That conjurers images...

In 2050 Apple under the control of the undead lord skeltor of Jobs sends back the iTerminator i1000 to prevent its demise.
Coming to an iMax cinema soon!!!

* YAWN *
How many times have we heard this?
And how many times have Apple out-trumped the competition with a better product and experience?
Time will tell if this is a masterstroke from Google that puts an end to Apple's dominance in this sector, but I somehow doubt it.
Glad to be proven wrong, though!


Couldn't agree more, and on quality and innovation Apple seem to have the upper hand - yes, on price they could be much more aggressive but if people are buying iPhones in big enough numbers (which they seem to be) then Apple don't really need to cut prices.

Can somebody explain to me how Google owning Motorola's mobile business (which radically needs an overhaul) is any different to Google supplying the existing manufacturers with a mobile OS?
Unless, and this is of course idle speculation, Google would like to tighten up what goes on with it's OS and sees that controlling both the OS and the hardware as being the best way forward.
Which will, in turn, infuriate the people who believe Android is free and open and everything's lovely.

I've always believed the 'lowest price wins' dictum was a bit of an illusion to be honest with you. If you look at pretty much any market, it's not the cheapest option that dominates. Generally speaking it's the best value option that dominates. or possibly even 'best perceived value', which leaves some wiggle room for good marketing and brand loyalty. Simply making your widget cheaper than the other guy's widget generally doesn't win you lion's share of the market and in the process you cheat yourself out of income, unless you have some innovation that makes your widgets cheaper to produce, in which case good luck to you.

Time and again studies have shown that things can be 'too cheap'. People do associate quality with price, even subconsciously. The trick is to find the sweet spot where your product is affordable to the biggest segment of people while still not appearing to be a 'bargain bucket' option.

Jon

hello moto ...

I still don't get the iPhone is too expensive thing. For most people it's only going to be a hundred odd quid, which seems pretty good for what you get to me.

Actually when I signed up to my P910i contract many years ago I paid the same sort of figure and had a longish contract as well. The iPhone can be expensive depending on how you use it. As a PAYG phone it can be pricey.

Er, you can't be serious.

For example, on T-Mobile, a 16GB iPhone 4 will cost you £100 on a £35/month 2-year contract.

The Samsung Galaxy S 2 is free on a £35/month contract. You also get 300 minutes more with this phone (900 vs 600 for the iPhone).

What does the iPhone do that the Galaxy S 2 doesn't then? Seems like a pretty expensive deal if you ask me.

It allows you to experience the true wonder of iTunes.

Don't forget the Reality Distortion Field.

What i meant was I was on a 35 a month contract before and now I still am with an iPhone for 100 quid. Doesn't make it expensive to me, it just makes the galaxy s look ludicrously cheap, but I guess they have to do that to try and gain Market share.

At present the likes of Samsung and HTC are being sued left right and centre by Microsoft and Apple. Neither of whom dares to sue Google directly.

Neither can now sue either of those parties for any Android based patent infringement without going up against both Google and Motorola. If they try, Google will presumably use the same methods that Novell did to hijack SCO's Linux case, effectively putting any suit against HTC / Samsung on hold for years. If they don't fancy that, then they can still fight back on behalf of their OEMs with a counter suit.

That's the parent company which makes billions from Android (giving it both the motive and the means to defend itself more vigorously than its weaker partners), and the subsidiary that invented the mobile phone and probably owns enough patents to tear down the whole temple around it. If I were Apple, I'd settle with Samsung for $5 right about now.

I wouldn't be surprised if Google wants to get back out of the hardware business within a couple of years, but they won't sell those patents.