Advertisements
Advertisements

Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle and others file antitrust against ‘Trojan Horse’ activities of Android?

| April 11, 2013 | 88 Replies

Screen Shot 2013-04-11 at 08.55.15

 

Quick heads up just to share the story if you missed it  from a couple of days ago:

Advertisements

I believe it’s about Google app bundling into Android, getting unfair advantage over consumer data. Whilst Android is free, Android partners are required to install a set of Google apps in-order to be Android certified. The FairSearch group, consisting of MS, Nokia, Oracle and others has asked the EU Antitrust commission to investigate these alleged antitrust practices by Google

Oh, Trojan Horse, phrase of 2011 :p

Cheers all for the tip

Advertisements

Category: Nokia

About the Author ()

Hey, thanks for reading my post. My name is Jay and I'm a medical student at the University of Manchester. When I can, I blog here at mynokiablog.com and tweet now and again @jaymontano. We also have a twitter and facebook accounts @mynokiablog and  Facebook.com/mynokiablog. Check out the tips, guides and rules for commenting >>click<< Contact us at tips(@)mynokiablog.com or email me directly on jay[at]mynokiablog.com
  • StefanP

    What about the Bing button?? :)

    • Bloob

      Doesn’t matter, WP is not in a monopoly position.

      • xxx

        Really? What about a whole windows machine which supports WP, especially metro ui (unwanted changes of windows ui). There is one and only evil – microsoft. Nokia should never collaborate with Microsoft.

      • dss

        No one is in a “monopoly position”.

        google are as much monopoly as Microsoft were in the 90s, but that didn’t stop governments from going after them. So, if there is any consistency in this, Google should be sanctioned.

        • Bloob

          That’s my point, it’s not a literal monopoly, but 80% of the market is a much of a monopoly than MS ever had. Google needs to me monitored.

    • Dracula Spike

      Most useless button I have found in any phone.
      You are talking in phone, phone touches your cheek or face and press that button… BOOM… Call ends there immediately and you are taken to bing search.

      • StefanP

        That’s right. I gave a 820 to my mother because I think WP is easy to use. One of the few things she complains about is the unwanted landing on Bing.
        Besides the general question if this button is needed, I think it’s a question of HW design. It should be a bit further away from the corner. Or maybe just the sensitive area could be smaller or moved . Maybe this could be even changed be SW? Even MS should be interested that users don’t get angry at Bing (I start to hate the Bing screen).

        • Delifrance

          Just get rid of those 3 buttons
          oh, and they had solved it with N9

          • StefanP

            Still have it, overall still the best for me, given the HW standard at time of release, just some apps missing.
            “My Nokia Dream”: 920 HW with Harmattan and Alien Dalvik. Or Sailfish. Of course without buttons (except camera button).

            • zlutor

              +1000

              • Martin Clooney

                +99999999999999999999999999999 and infinite number of +es,

                I agree and I can’t agree more!

                Nokia hardware, preferably with 41Mpix camera, and Harmattan/Sailfish MeeGo with Alien Dalvik…… Really the dream mobile = hot Nokia stuff on the market. No more words are needed.

            • http://thegadgetfreak.net Ajit

              +100000000000000000000000

      • shallow ocean shoal

        What do you mean call ends? It’s actually been an annoyance of mine that when I end a call but don’t hit the hangup button and instead hit the win button the call is still active until the other side’s hangup cycles through…that’s how it should be though.

  • nn

    So Nokia is complaining that open source is free of charge and successful. I guess the transition has been fully completed, the old bad Nokia entirely eradicated.

    • new_user

      “Nokia is complaining that open source is free of charge and successful.”
      How did you come into that conclusion?

      • nn

        By listening to what fairsearch says?

    • zlutor

      All are complaining because they are not on the other side.

      M$ in an antitrust issue and not on the target side – quite a new experience… :-)

      • poopshoot

        No not really. MS is very careful now ever since the 90’s antitrust fiasco. MS is the most open mobile platform now. Ever wonder why MS is releasing MS apps to other mobile platforms?

        Anyway, go read an “ethics in information technology” textbook. You will see other companies are 10x’s worse than MS now.

    • Viipottaja

      Even open source, AFAIK/IMHO is not necessarily ok to give away completely free if you are in a commanding market position and if
      a) you have invested hundreds of million if not billions on it
      b) and you are at the same time saying you have to use my services to get certification
      c) you have, or so some at least claim, stolen or liberally borrowed a lot of other folks IP as a part of it.

      • nn

        Sorry, but this just list of things that make no sense pulled out of the Redmond’s campus part where sun isn’t shining. If that was even remotely applicable, you could close down all the successful open source projects, which no doubt would made MS (now along with Nokia) happy, but it’s not going to happen.

        It isn’t even apparent what MS exactly wants out of this. OK, they want Google start charging so much money for Android people would stop buying it. That obviously can’t happen.

        So barring that, what else? Showing ballot with IE and Chrome? I don’t think that would solve MS problems. Allow manufacturers to (pre/un)install whatever things they want and still retain the trademark? Again, I don’t think MS would like that outcome either. Given MS is trying to create something similar with their ecosystem, only orders of magnitude worse than the Google deal, I guess all they hope for is bad PR for Google and then quiet dismissal without nasty precedents.

        • Viipottaja

          So, you are claiming all successful open source projects involve investments of hundreds of millions by a corporation leading the project, and then giving it for free as a part of its business plan for the product, and tie/require its use to their other services?

          I agree its not clear from the stories in the internet what exactly are the claims against Google in this case, and as for motivations/objectives of FairSearch and what they expect/hope to get out of this, it is indeed difficult to speculate. I would guess this could also be used as a chip in a much larger game on IP, pricing, services tie in etc. All is fair in a war, I guess. :P

          • nn

            Why it should matter if the project/product is lead by one corporation or includes investments in billions? Such rules don’t make sense and are completely arbitrary.

            The claim against Android is quite clear. Fairsearch complains it’s free of charge, i.e. Google is distributing it below-cost, which is reason why sales of other smartphone OSes (meaning WP, because only MS is pretending to charge money for their OS) are hampered, which makes Google the dominant smartphone provider.

            What isn’t clear is the logic of such complaint and what remedies MS expects.

            • Viipottaja

              I guess it might matter if that particular corporation has spend billions and by giving away the results for free has gained (CLAIMED) a monopolistic/dominant position.

              Also, you said by that logic “_all_ the successful open source projects could be closed down” so I thought you implied all successful open source projects involve hundreds of million in investment and then giving the product away for free as the business strategy.

              Yes, I read what the story says the claim is. That does not matter that’s the only claim/all there is to it. What I meant.

              The logic is you go after your competitors if you think you have a reasonable case of unfair practices. We’ll see if it holds court water or not. I am not sure it will, not at all.

              As for remedies, I guess FairSearch will seek e.g. some or all of the following: penalties, temporary sale stop orders, stopping/amending the requirements for using Google serviecs to get Android Certification, and/or requirement to start chargning at least “at cost” prices for the Android licenses (I assume there are some licensing requirements, even though its “open source”).

              • nn

                So imagine we are in the same situation, Android has the same dominant position, but the cost of Android development was $50M. Then I guess no problem, right?

                I said your rules don’t make sense and then started the second sentence with “If that was even remotely applicable”, meaning if you tried to extract from the mess something that resembles fair non-arbitrary rules, then it would indeed be about all open source.

                For example corporations are significant part of Linux (the kernel) development, and the value of the code is estimated to be well over $1B. We should shut down that below-cost beast along with Android.

                • Viipottaja

                  Fair point on the cost – perhaps more of a perception thing indeed. And a business reality problem where Google are, one could argue, putting out a massive loss leader on the back of their dominance in search and advertisement.

                  But is the Linux kernel a product, really? Android seems quite different and much more than “just” a kernel. And don’t some/most/many of those corporations contributing to the Linux kernel seek to monetize on that in their products?

  • new_user

    I am not sure if it’s the same thing but wasn’t Microsoft fined for using Internet Explorer as its main browser?

  • Rich

    Seems petty to me, to be honest. Google owns Android, and makes its money from its services. I see no problem with a company including its own products in its own product. It’s like saying Nokia, and WP, should include Google Maps and iTunes instead of their own offering.

    Besides, Android is unrestricted on installations. Yes it comes with a Gmail app, but it also has a standard email app. Yes, it has Google Maps, but you can use Here or other sat-nav apps instead. It’s a redundant argument that Android is unfair because it’s owners products are included in it.

    What about all the OEM bloatware on all Windows computers? You end up spending ages figuring out what crap HP has included and then trying to remove it.

    • Guest

      Strange that Microsoft got sued for bundling IE in Windows if you dont see no problem with that.

      • Rich

        It wasn’t me who sued them.

        And it’s not strange, because there are EU directives that stated Microsoft had to give the *choice* to consumers of which browser to install, which it ignored.

        Would anyone complain if Office was bundled in new computers, instead of users having to fork out extra for it? No, i don’t think they would. I’d certainly be grateful for it.

        • StefanP

          Would MS bundle it for free? No! It would be paid by a higher price and you are FORCED to buy it, even if you would prefer OpenOffice.

          • Rich

            *If* they bundled it for free i was talking about.

            And Google’s bundled services are free. Google charges nothing to the OEMs to build Android devices, and users don’t have to pay to use YouTube or GMail. Google’s entire business model hinges on advertising.

            So, i still think this is a pointless antitrust piece, because Google is doing what they all do – including its own software with its products. We don’t complain that Nokia includes Nokia Maps on its phones, in fact many did complain that it opened them up to other WP phones. So it’s ok for Nokia to include its services, and MS to include its services, and Apple to include its services, and BlackBerry to include its services, but it’s bad when Google does it?

            • Viipottaja

              Again, if I understand correctly, because they are indeed giving Android for free to the OEMs – instead, I gather, others are saying they should at least recoup the costs (i.e. sell licenses “at cost”) to make the playing field level/not to “misuse” their dominant position. On top, the claim is, Google is not only giving it away for free but “forcing” OEMs to use bundled Google services as a quid pro quo – OEMs may view it a fair trade off, competitors as first using unfair competitive practices (not recovering your costs) AND “forcing” OEMs to also use their services.

              Once again, not defending the merits of the case necessarily, just trying to understand the logic of it myself. :)

              • Martin Clooney

                The point is that you can make your own choice, Windows was pre-installed in such a way that user could not refuse to use it, even if one was using other browser. Browser is not necessary element in the operating system. User must have possibility to make a choice AND must be informed there is such a choice. Also developers have not been informed and have not access to system functions which were giving an advantage of better performance. So non-Microft products were not treated equally what is breaking of the law and for this Micoft was punished at last once as I know.
                This is nothing about free OEM etc.. this is about unfair competitor at free market, and overuse of customer’s good faith and quite often overuse of customer’s lack of knowledge (some call this cheating) .

                • Viipottaja

                  Yes, fully agree on the first para, and on the second,also agree the free part may not be a part of the legal argument but likely is part of the “real” motive to file the complaint (probably citing the types of things you list) in the first place. :)

              • Rich

                But it isn’t forcing OEMs. As I said already, I own a Kindle Fire and it has nothing Google on it – not a Gmail app, not YouTube, not Google Maps, or the Play Store.

                And even if it is “forcing”, it’s just rhetoric. The actual message would be, “Hey, here’s our operating system and we include our services in it too. Feel free to put it on your own hardware.”

          • Rich

            Plus, OEMs can customise Android. My Kindle Fire doesn’t have Chrome, Play Store or YouTube, yet it runs Android.

            Case closed.

            • Viipottaja

              Kindle is not Google Certified Android though, right?

              If I understand correctly, part of the logic of the case is that Google is giving full Android for free, but only if you are willing to use their services. If not, you can try to fork your own version building on Android (IIRC there has been some chatter about Google trying to ensure other OEMs don’t/could not do that as easily in the future), but not every OEM has Amazon’s resources to go at it alone, and are, thus, forced to using Google’s services, which could be considered misusing your dominant market position?

              I am not saying the case is not potentially a bit petty, but not sure its “a case closed” one either. :)

              • Rich

                Still sounds ridiculous to me. Has Google changed this policy since getting big, or has it operated in this way since day one? If it has changed it then perhaps there is a case, but if not then it’s easily argued that Android got so dominant because so many OEMs used it *because* it was free.

                What’s really stupid about this also is that people WANT Google apps. iOS6 demonstrated that quite conclusively, with Google Maps and YouTube being downloaded in record numbers. Countless people use Gmail, even more use YouTube and Maps. If Google didn’t include them, 90%+ users would just install them anyway. Which is different from Microsoft and Internet Explorer, because 90%+ of users go “wtf is this shit, i’m getting firefox!”

    • DesR85

      “Seems petty to me, to be honest.”

      I agree, including the EU verdict against Microsoft for bundling IE into Windows a few years ago. But since the latter happened, it is only fair that Google be held accountable as well. Besides, it is Google which reported Microsoft to them at that time.

      But if the EU decides not to charge Google for this, then it is only fair that they overturn the verdict they slapped unto Microsoft a few years ago (and possibly compensate Microsoft for the EU court’s stupidity, but that is a pipe dream on my part :p).

      • Rich

        I agree that it was petty against MS too, although to be fair, working occasionally for computer repair, i am also aware that many users are simply unaware alternatives to IE exist, some don’t even know what a “browser” is.

        That being said, two wrongs don’t make a right and MS being undeservedly punished doesn’t mean Google should be on the hot seat here. Besides, Apple has a hefty stake on the mobile browsing percentages, but isn’t getting punished for Safari. My Note 2 came with Chrome AND another browser, called Internet. I haven’t even opened Chrome, i use Internet or Firefox.

        My Lumia, on the other hand, has one decent browser – IE. There is no Chrome or Firefox.

        This filing is really just because Android is successful and the other companies are trying to weaken it. There is plenty to attack Google on, and i’m no fan of their business practices, but i just think is a ridiculous suit. Isn’t this the whole thing of an “ecosystem”, Elop’s favourite word? Why create a suite of applications if you can’t include them on your own operating system?!

        • DesR85

          “I agree that it was petty against MS too, although to be fair, working occasionally for computer repair, i am also aware that many users are simply unaware alternatives to IE exist, some don’t even know what a “browser” is.”

          I have done a fair bit of troubleshooting computers/laptops myself, including that of my own, even though I’m not a computer technician but I also have come across the exact same situation as yours. Never encountered anyone from the latter part, though. Anyway, I have to introduce them to Firefox and showed them Google, only then do they realise their existence. Can’t recall what year it was but it was during the time that Firefox was still new and MSN search was still popular.

          “That being said, two wrongs don’t make a right and MS being undeservedly punished doesn’t mean Google should be on the hot seat here. Besides, Apple has a hefty stake on the mobile browsing percentages, but isn’t getting punished for Safari. My Note 2 came with Chrome AND another browser, called Internet. I haven’t even opened Chrome, i use Internet or Firefox.

          My Lumia, on the other hand, has one decent browser – IE. There is no Chrome or Firefox.

          This filing is really just because Android is successful and the other companies are trying to weaken it. There is plenty to attack Google on, and i’m no fan of their business practices, but i just think is a ridiculous suit. Isn’t this the whole thing of an “ecosystem”, Elop’s favourite word? Why create a suite of applications if you can’t include them on your own operating system?!”

          I think the key word is ‘dominance’ here. Just like how Windows is the dominant OS on PC/laptops which led to anti-trust cases against Microsoft in the US and the IE ruling in the EU years ago. Now it is Google’s turn to face the exact same problem for their Android OS dominance in the smartphone market.

          Apple may be dominant with their iPhones (and iPads to a certain extent) in some countries but not all of them and even their iMacs are sold in relatively low numbers. Plus the fact that their products are all developed in-house and none of their OS or software are licensed to other OEMs will guarantee them an escape from the ruling.

          All in all, I think none of this would have happened if the EU didn’t open a can of worms by fining Microsoft over the IE debacle. No thanks to Google for that. Since it happened, I’m not surprised that Google is now in hot soup over Android’s dominance and I have little pity for them. To sum it up, what goes around, comes around. ;)

          • Martin Clooney

            Again: “The point is that you can make your own choice, Windows was pre-installed in such a way (and IE integrated into Windows) that user could not refuse to use IE, even if one was using other browser. Browser is not necessary element in the operating system. User must have possibility to make a choice AND must be informed there is such a choice. Also developers have not been informed and have not access to system functions which were giving an advantage of better performance. So non-Microft products were not treated equally what is breaking of the law and for this Micoft was punished at last once as I know. Microsoft was offering Windows as an OS with equal access for all sides (including developers) but in secret Microsoft’s devs have advantages.
            This is nothing about free OEM or dominating etc.. this is about unfair competitor at free market, and overuse of customer’s good faith and quite often overuse of customer’s lack of knowledge (some call this cheating).”

            “My Lumia, on the other hand, has one decent browser – IE. There is no Chrome or Firefox.” –
            – yes but your Lumia represent about 1% of the market, and there is no FireFox and other browsers cause the developers don’t recognise Limias as attractive. Hence nobody claims for unfair competition. Hence there is not any case in the court, as this is “nobody’s piece of cake”.

            “All in all, I think none of this would have happened if the EU didn’t open a can of worms by fining Microsoft over the IE debacle. No thanks to Google for that. Since it happened, I’m not surprised that Google is now in hot soup over Android’s dominance and I have little pity for them. To sum it up, what goes around, comes around. ;)” –
            – this is not any “mystical EU” who opened any Pandora’s box but living people who were claimed against MS monopolistic practices. And for that MS was punished. As MS has not obeyed seems that pretty soon can be punished again.
            Android and Google is not about dominance but about combining 60 policies into 1, which is unreadable and not understandable for common user. This causes user are signed into services they never wanted to use, and also their right to privacy can be broken when unknown persons can have access to customer’s data and personal data without customers prior permission. And if Google will not obey then will be punished. For both companies this should be so simple – you break the low, you have consequences.

            And I think EU law is in this area much better and practical then US law. I am very happy I can live in EU, not US.

            • Rich

              “- yes but your Lumia represent about 1% of the market, and there is no FireFox and other browsers cause the developers don’t recognise Limias as attractive. Hence nobody claims for unfair competition. Hence there is not any case in the court, as this is “nobody’s piece of cake”. ”

              Actually, Mozilla was complaining about the coding of Windows Phone just before WP7 was originally released. They WANT to develop Firefox for Windows Phone but they won’t build it on Microsoft’s coding language, and Microsoft won’t open the app development to include others. So, in truth, browsing on WP means you must use IE, or trust your browsing data, passwords etc to browsers made by unknown third parties.

            • DesR85

              Again: “The point is that you can make your own choice, Windows was pre-installed in such a way (and IE integrated into Windows) that user could not refuse to use IE, even if one was using other browser. Browser is not necessary element in the operating system. User must have possibility to make a choice AND must be informed there is such a choice. Also developers have not been informed and have not access to system functions which were giving an advantage of better performance. So non-Microft products were not treated equally what is breaking of the law and for this Micoft was punished at last once as I know. Microsoft was offering Windows as an OS with equal access for all sides (including developers) but in secret Microsoft’s devs have advantages.”

              I am aware of the latter complaints and Windows restrictions, but that will be a matter for another discussion. Right now, I just want to focus on the stupidity of the EU Court ruling against Microsoft in regards to the IE integration.

              In regards to internet browser choice, it is a well-known fact that Firefox overtook IE in terms of popularity at that time, so I fail to see how an ordinary user will not know about its existence, let alone that of Google.

              If that person seldom use the computer, then I can understand them overlooking those choices, but for someone who uses them regularly, I’m sure they are bound to find them sooner or later. And besides, you can use IE to download whatever browser you like, install them and use it, even making it your preferred browser if you fancy it.

              All this ruling did is to make Europeans look stupid and I’m not surprised that a number of them felt this way.

              “- this is not any “mystical EU” who opened any Pandora’s box but living people who were claimed against MS monopolistic practices. And for that MS was punished. As MS has not obeyed seems that pretty soon can be punished again.
              Android and Google is not about dominance but about combining 60 policies into 1, which is unreadable and not understandable for common user. This causes user are signed into services they never wanted to use, and also their right to privacy can be broken when unknown persons can have access to customer’s data and personal data without customers prior permission. And if Google will not obey then will be punished. For both companies this should be so simple – you break the low, you have consequences.”

              Yeah, I agree about breaking the rules part, but since there is no verdict on Google yet, so we have to wait and see how it unfolds.

              But what I do want to see is accountability, since Microsoft have to obey the ruling, dumb or not, imposed by the EU (not to mention paying a fine), then it is only fair that those same rules apply to other companies, particularly Google.

              And as I have said before, if Google is not held accountable regardless of reason, then it is only fair to overturn the ruling against Microsoft years ago and, if possible, though a long shot, compensate them for the fine they have to pay at that time.

          • Rich

            Oh for sure, and i have no sympathy for Google. I just think that in this instance it’s petty, and shows the competition to be worried.

            • DesR85

              I’m not surprised if that is one of the myriad of reasons for Microsoft and co. to go after them.

              Agreed that it is still petty, but from the way I see it, it is about being fair and accountable, regardless on how dumb the law is. Since it is applied to Microsoft, it is only fair to apply it to Google as well.

              It will be interesting to see how Google will code Android to create menus to choose what Internet browsers and other software suites to use as Microsoft before it, in regards to the former. :p

  • Paris

    Microsoft taking an issue with Android search monopoly might be understandable, but wtf Nokia? How does Nokia relate to this issue? Nokia is nothing but a foot soldier of MS? Pathetic.

    • dss

      Nokia = Microsoft

      … whatever daddy says, they do.

  • Luisito

    Aprils fool ended, no?

    Seriously, MS the King of monopoly practice…

    • dss

      How so ? They were never a monopoly.. they had a better product than everyone else. No one forced the OEMs to go with Windows, Linux has always been right along Windows offering an alternative.

      • Rich

        Well, that’s entirely wrong. Dig up a little on Microsoft’s history and you’ll realise that it became so dominant by bullying and buying. Word programs originally were cross compatible – Apple Pages would open a Microsoft Word document no problem, but Microsoft refused to allow it to open Pages documents. Microsoft’s attitude was always one of lock-down, so you had to buy their products.

        They sure as hell didn’t have a better product than anyone else. OSX and Linux have always been more robust, and OSX runs rings around Windows.

        • Martin Clooney

          Similar situation was with IBM’s system called “OS 2″. It was cross compatible with early Windows till MS has not refused to cooperate. Some say OS2 was much more flexible and innovative, so MS has “played tricky” with IBM, you can read about it. At last some say so.

          • 2011 oli liian myöhään

            Windows compatibility pretty much killed OS/2.

            After that there was no need for native applications.

          • GordonH

            Great comment bringing up IBM’s “OS 2″.

  • Paris

    Talking about Trojan horse!

  • PhilK

    How ironic, MS built their empire on monopolostic practices

    • Tom

      It sucks being on other side for MS

  • ms.nokia

    (( Whilst Android is free, Android partners are required to install a set of Google apps in-order to be Android certified ))

    so google does get a financial return from the “free” android software, by forcing OEMs to install these income generating apps on supposedly free software, which is borrowed or stolen from different industries.

    • 2011 oli liian myöhään

      And some Nokia fans wanted to see Nokia using Android.

      • Pathetic

        indeed you’re a fan with nothing in your head haha I bet you anything you want another browser on your lumia or any Google service, as I bet you never seen some video on Youtube right?. Microsoft is a fu*cking f*agot boy. and Nokia? what about Nokia? what the hell, the only salvation bridges remains and you attack? let me guess, Mr Elop, yes, the Trojan horse, the same. Microsoft rather than mourn like a fa*got boy who broke a fingernail, they should make better products, that’s why people do not like their service, are rubbish. this is not Google’s fault, or “monopolic practices” i call it take the opportunity, who were the idiots that allowed Nokia stop Symbian and MeeGo? Microsoft, From that moment the majority of Nokia users went to Android and let me tell you, there were many Symbian users, thanks to Microsoft they allowed Google to grow more than they should and now must face their decisions. now we see that everything Microsoft does is a complete failure, W8, WP8, Hotmail, Messenger, Windows RT. and when the new Xbox goes on sale you will see that it will be a complete failure.

        • Bassman

          Wow, I thought your posts couldn’t get any worse. Idiocy with an unhealthy dose of homophobia. Seriously, get a grip you sad little individual.

          • GordonH

            Yes we get it, he’s not cool. The guys complaining about the MS-Nok deal since 2 years ago have been right and it’s not cool to be right.

            • Bassman

              Have you actually read his/her post? This is nothing to do with Nokia using WP but a comment on ‘pathetic’s’ use of homophobic language. Then again, it doesn’t surprise me that you’d agree with them.

              • GordonH

                And it doesn’t surprise me that you disagree with him.

                • Bassman

                  It’s clear that your bitterness is clouding your ability to understand the meaning of my post, unless you are purposely trying to troll, either senario is likely.

                  • GordonH

                    OK … I am a bit bitter at the moment.

                    But people around here are over protect of Elop and MS, if they were “really” about protecting Nokia then I wouldn’t mind one bit

                    • Bassman

                      You are perfectly entitled to your opinions and the world would be fairly boring if we all agreed.

                      The point I was trying to make about the original post was that, regardless of what people’s opinions of the use of WP by Nokia, the use of ‘f***g faggot boy’ to describe MS is what I was taking exception to. It’s at best, childish and at worst, homophobic.

        • v.s.i

          ^ That is one of the most incomprehensible, unreadable, meaningless drivels I’ve ever seen. At least it’s arguably short, kudos for that.

    • GordonH

      And some MS fans wanted to see Nokia using only Windows.

      • 2011 oli liian myöhään

        Nokia was able to choose only one OS for their smartphones.

        That’s all what was possible.

        • GordonH

          you forgot the /s

      • KeiZka

        And some people are bound to past.

        • GordonH

          And some people work for MS.

          • v.s.i

            And you do not work for any of them and neither do I. I’m getting really tired of all the armchair critics over here that seem to know how to run a company better than an individual who, besides experience, has also made professional studies in that field. And what’s more, those who seem to think that there is no single person in the management that know what they’re doing, not even the board.

            People, it is *just* a mobile phone company!

            If you don’t really like to accept that the company is now headed into a different direction, and a more secure and profitable one than the precedent, and you *really* choose to turn a blind eye to any business that has ever had to go through a restructuring effort, and furthermore have not attended any such business education institution’s courses for at least a sizable amount of time, please preface your comments with ‘In my opinion’, ‘I think that’ or any other similar expression and do not bother to answer this comment, as it is evident that you have nothing better to waste your time on and excessive bitterness can cause, among other afflictions, coronary artery disease, brain stroke, myocardial infarction, asthma attacks and immunosuppression, potentially leading to other, more serious health concerns such as stomach ulcers and other less curable ones.

            • GordonH

              It’s not rocket science and 2years ago every high schooler, college student, stockholder, investor, software developer and even MBA graduates knew that
              “MS was getting all benefits from the ms-nok deal.”

              I mean it’s getting too damn weird to put reason into WP fans, so logically it would alright if some of them turned out to be MS employees.
              The pattern of comments are too weird across most of the internet.

  • GordonH

    “Trojan Horse”
    Oh the irony !!!

  • Tom

    If Nokia wants to have a future, they should stay away from it.

    MS and Oracle are big, has lot of money and business where mobile is just a side show. MS can kill WP and be fine, focus on windows and enterprise. Oracle has nothing to do with mobile(J2ME not counting).

    Nokia is mobile. If at all, they should stay under the radar, try to reconcile with Google and see what works once Microsoft contract expire, unless they are bidding for MS.

  • Oreg

    They are joking, right? I thought monopoly situation is bad, becouse you can charge more money from customers. Now Google’s “monopoly” with Android is bad, becouse they are not charging any money? How is that even a monopoly situation?

    Obviously, MS has problem with Google’s services and not with Android itself. Everybody using these and not MS’s services, but they cannot attack Google’s services straight, becouse they are providing these services with the same conditions, free, too.

    Android is like a big advertisement billboard for Google services.

    • KeiZka

      Can’t say I’m a fan of any company mining user data, but Google is the scariest one of those, since their whole enterprise is built upon that.

      • GordonH

        options for intelligent Android users to switch of a lot of that mining.
        Either your not very intelligent or haven’t tried Android lately.

    • Viipottaja

      FairSearch does indeed be complaining about the services tie up to Android, not Android “itself” (although it might be hard for end use to tell where services stop and Android starts or visa versa).

      Monopolies can sometimes afford to price dump/keep prices “artificially” low and thus smoke competition out, so a “suspiciously” low price can well be an indication of a monopoly situation too.

  • BS

    I doubt this will help Microsoft, Nokia or Oracle in any meaningful way. Oracle is probably still shocked it lost the case against Android over Java dispute and Nokia got cough in the middle because it’s under Microsoft control. Oracle and Nokia are probably mentioned just to add some weight in to look more than it is but i doubt Nokia or Oracle believe there is something to gain in this.

    That lives Microsoft as probably the chef architect of this case and it will probably just hurt Microsoft too because it gives clear message of better admitting Microsoft can’t compete with Google anymore…

  • http://saurinchoksi.tumblr.com/post/61581328954/plants-vs-zombies-2-cheats-essential-tips-and-hints plants vs. zombies 2

    Your style is really unique in comparison to other people I’ve
    read stuff from. Thank you for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I’ll just
    bookmark this web site.

Advertisements