Jump to content

Dear Leo Laporte


G+_Daniel Grossberg
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear Leo Laporte,

If no cash, molar, Dollar/Dollar/Dollar bills ya'all changed hands, then Google isn't being disingenuous saying no money changed hands! They would be so if they said they got no commercial value from the deal but to my knowledge they have never said that and in fact are being very specific to say "no cash".

 

JMTC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand leo's vitriol. It's just about getting mind share. Win win in this case. Nestlé sells more kit kats, and non android nerds learn about a new Android version.

 

Android really struggles with mind share in the general public. Most people don't even know it has anything to do with google. They just see the brand name on the front of the phone. And that is why apple gets all the hype. They are the brand name on the front.

 

Android needs this in order to become a brand unto it's self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is trying to make the point that the name is an ad deal, that google is trying to pass it off like its not. Also considering how Specific google was with its words, that no money changed hands over the naming, the door s wide open to money changing hands for the android being on kitkats or for kitkat being written about in blogs.

 

We didn't start the fire but we just put it under a giant magnifying

Glass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke Olson the issue I have with his comments are that hes suggesting that Google is hiding the fact they get benefit in the co-marketing deal, when they have done nothing of the kind. All they have said is no cash has changed hands.

 

He has at times called them liers by saying he thinks money will change hands which he has absolutely no evidence of!

 

And again, Google have done nothing wrong naming a free OS whatever they want and last time I looked, Nestle have the right to put whatever they like on there wrappers!

 

Jmtc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying they have done anything wrong, I'm just trying to explain that in the business world everything is business.

 

By saying that "no money exchanged hands" they are implying to the public that this is just a fun little name they put on their product and there is no business connection to nestle.

 

Yes, "no money changed hands" that doesn't mean that services were not exchanged or that money won't change hands in the future.  Its quite disingenuous to suggest that this isn't anything but an ad campaign.  its like using a prostitute and exchanging drugs for sex.  Sure "No money exchanged hands" but you still engaged in prostitution.  Saying otherwise is lying.

 

They can name it whatever they want, barring any use of trademark names, which would require some sort of agreement Imagine nestle putting the apple logo on hershey bars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. Let me touch your analogy first. It is like you say if the one seeking the sex is a drug dealer! Yes, Google gave Nestle advertising and so did Nestle to Google. Google said they picked the name before the deal and there is no evidence that this is wrong or miss leading. There is no evidence that they only choose the name to do the deal! You only have to listen to Google people to know that the Google Engineers don't take shite and if they see it will call it, so if they thought the deal stunk they would be the ones calling it and they justlain aren't.

 

So again, when they say no money changed hands the sole thing they mean and want to get across is, this may be shocking with the words that they are using, NO MONEY CHANGED HANDS!! Whatever others want to read into it, that's up to them.

 

Your last paragraph is funny as, ITS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! They said they wanted to use the trade marked name, Kit Kat and so had to get Nestles approval!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point entirely

 

Leo is pointing out that this deal is a mutually beneficial advertising deal to both companies.

 

Google is saying "No money changed hands" implying that its not an ad deal.

 

Just because "no money changed hands" doesn't negate that this is a business deal and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He is trying to make the point that the name is an as deal, that Google is trying to pass it off like it's not.

Also considering how Specific google was with its words, that no money changed hands over the naming, the door s wide open to money changing hands for the android being on kitkats or for kitkat being written about in blogs.

 

We didn't start the fire but we just put it under a giant magnifying

Glass"

 

If this isn't you saying they were being shifty, what the heck are you saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may elbow myself into this discussion, I think you are all missing the bigger picture here. Android is hailed as completely Open Source. Almost all (most but not all) open source software is protected by the GPL license. The GPL license specifies a company cannot charge money for the software (services and support not withstanding) and it cannot include the software into any other licensing agreements. To do so requires the permission of every single one of the previous developers (all the way down the chain) to approve a license which is outside of the GPL sphere.

 

whew

 

So, what Leo is pointing out is IF Google has a deal with Nestle for any kind of cross license promotional considerations they may be subverting the entire legal structure of all open source software.

 

This was tried before and failed big time when IBM moved into the legal dispute to protect the License for Linux. See SCO v. IBM

 

To say "no money changed hands" is to infer not paying for a promotional consideration must free them from the restrictions of the GPL. BUT (you saw the big but there did you?) Breaking a license agreement with the entire FOSS community would be catastrophic for Google. Lawyers will claim its just a name. But as so many others have said in this discussion it is mindshare and the link to Android which Google is hoping to get. As Android is protected by the GPL it would also have to ensure that there is no license for promotion which directly mentions the words "Android OS" or the fur will fly.

 

there

 

I'm done. But so many of these conversations focus too much on the money part and not enough on the technology part. Leo has been in the business of promotion a long time. I trust his nose to smell something fishy in this deal (or non-deal) before I would trust my own. He knows what these contracts look like and how they read. Nestle may only get access to use the name Android on their candy bar but they are driving a little too close to the shoulder for me to be comfortable it will not harm the FOSS community with a precedent affecting the GPL License structure.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Dave Trautman  Great point.  I hadn't thought about the open source/GPL implications of naming rights.   Google is obviously thinking about it with the "no money changed hands" statement though.  Could we see the KitKat statue reboxing soon?

 

Sidenote: this is why the conversation side of G+ is amazing.  I saw a different viewpoint today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned Jeffery Dave Trautman The issues with this arguement are Two fold:

1) Android is licensed under an Apache License not GPL (if I understand correctly and not sure that shanges the point. I.e. if apache license has same clause). 

2) They still aren't changing money for the software (even if money did change hands)! They are doing a cross marketing deal on the Codename of the next release. Surley when you want to keep something OpenSource and not charge for a commericial version of it, this is a classical way of doing it! 

 

Oh, and lastly, Leo probably doesn't even remember that Android is in any part OpenSource let alone was making that point! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...