Odds shorten that next Apple product will be cheaper iPhone

•  
•           

A cheaper iPhone would allow Apple to lay siege to the pay-as-you-go market. Photograph: The Asahi Shimbun/The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Imag

Apple will not release a large-screened "phablet" phone to compete with arch-rival Samsung this year, according to analysts, as the odds narrow that the technology group will release a cheaper iPhone to capture the pay-as-you-go market.
Speculation over Apple's next big move is rife as a number of potential candidates – such as Apple TV or the iWatch – fall by the wayside. Having bought time from investors with the announcement last month of a $55bn (£35.3bn) share buyback, the company is expected to take a less radical development route by focusing on a cheaper, rather than larger, iPhone.
"The odds this year of a larger iPhone are zero," says Neil Mawston, executive director of the analysis company Strategy Analytics. Describing the new product as the iPhone 5S, he added: "That's what we're hearing from our supply chain sources in the Far East. It seems the iPhone 5S will be pretty similar to the iPhone 5."
About 25m "phablets" – defined as smartphones with screens of more than 5 inch diagonal length – were sold in 2012, according to IHS iSuppli, which forecasts that sales will hit 60m this year amid strong demand for Samsung's Galaxy Note. That compares to forecasts of total smartphone sales of 908m in 2013.
However there is growing anticipation that Apple will offer a cheaper iPhone to attract new buyers unable to afford the top-end devices. Steve Brazier, chief executive of Canalys, says Apple would benefit by offering phones in different designs and colours – as it did with the second generation of its best-selling iMac desktop computers in 1999. "Why should business people carry the same phone as teenagers?" Brazier asks. "Kids don't want the same phone as their dads."
With the smartphone market growing less rapidly than it has, analysts also question whether there is enough demand for a high-end Apple phone as prices are driven down by cheaper phones using Google's Android operating system – Samsung's main platform.
The Chinese smartphone market has taken over from the US as the world's largest and is the main location of growth. But most of the buyers there are opting for cheaper phones, and the iPhone's data system is not yet compatible with China Mobile, which has over 700 million subscribers.
Yet even a fast-selling "cheap iPhone" would not have a dramatic effect on Apple's gigantic revenues and profits, according to estimates by Benedict Evans, a technology and telecoms analyst for Enders Analysis. In a note to clients seen by the Guardian, he calculates that a phone priced at $200 which sold 40m in a quarter – effectively doubling Apple's phone sales – would generate $8bn of revenue and $2.4bn in profit.
That though would only have raised first quarter revenues by 8%, and profits by 4.5%. "In other words, a blockbuster new Apple phone that almost doubles unit sales and blows a hole in the middle of the Android market might only add 5% to Apple's gross profits," he said.
While Apple has stayed silent on its plans, and declined to comment for this article, analysts see change to its product line as inevitable.
Brazier says: "They have been slow to react to the fact that the market has changed. It gives them a huge advantage in economies of scale to build just one model, but they could have four or five. Look at the Mac [computer range] – they have those in all sorts of different sizes and shapes and configurations."
Horace Dediu, who runs the Asymco consultancy, reckons that Apple is more likely to offer a phone priced around $100 or $150 – to minimise "cannibalisation" of its top-end range – and observes: "Apple is happy to expand its portfolio in the Mac, iPod and iPad. Why should the iPhone be exempt?"
Apple's strategy may be glimpsed at its Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC) in San Francisco in June, when it will unveil the look and feel of the next generation of its iPhone and iPad software, iOS 7 – said to be codenamed "Innsbruck" inside the company.
The June launch will for the first time carry the imprimatur on the software of Jonathan Ive, the 46-year-old who has for nearly two decades been in charge only of the hardware design at Apple, heading the iMac, iPod and iPhone design.
But since the firing of retail chief John Browett and iOS chief Scott Forstall last October – the latter apparently over the Maps fiasco – Ive has been put in charge of the "human interface" of the software too, making him one of the most powerful people at Apple.
That has already led to changes. Forstall loved "skeumorphism" – making virtual objects appear like real-world ones – as seen when he demonstrated iOS 6's "Passbook" software for storing virtual tickets at WWDC in 2012. He showed how you'd delete unneeded ones: by putting them through a virtual shredder. Similarly, the "Find Friends" app (for locating phones) had faux stitched leather, and the Podcasts app displayed reel-to-reel tape – a technology that predates many iPhones' owners.
But an updated version of the Podcast app removed the tape, replacing it with data about the episode being played. Ive is expected to "flatten" and simplify many other aspects of the iOS software.

 

Facebook folly: what if social networks don't understand estrangement needs?

Simple algorithms that make 'friend' suggestions don't cater for complexities found in human relationships, especially families

Do social networks have too narrow an idea of our family dynamics and relationships? Photograph: H Armstrong Roberts/ ClassicStock/Corbis

My mother popped up on Facebook a few months ago as a "suggested friend". Her smile came up on the side of my screen, and I couldn't help but let my mouse gravitate to her name and linger over it.
With most people, if their mothers are already on Facebook then they're already "friends". But I became estranged from my parents half a decade ago, and hadn't exchanged words with my mother for over four years.
At a time when there's so much discussion about a "right to be forgotten" and methods to delete your digital life, I've done a lot to digitally forget my parents, and delete them from my digital life. I'd rejected invitations to connect from their work colleagues and friends so that snippets of their life wouldn't flash incidentally into mine and tempt me to linger.
Yet within seconds of my mother's profile flashing up on the screen, I found myself wading through my parents' most recent social occasions. It was exactly as I feared: they appeared absolutely fine. Dad was wallpapering in socks and sandals in a house in Coffs Bay, smiling. Mum had commented underneath: "my hero wallpapering". Next they were sat on a grassy hill, holding up glasses of white wine, beaming in the sun. That particular album was labelled London 2012. Image by image, I saw them posing outside the monuments in our capital and my current home.
I know – you're expecting the film script trajectory: the images lead me to end the estrangement, the family is reconciled, and in a faraway office Mark Zuckerberg smiles and rings a bell as another angel gets its wings.
Sorry. Not so. Instead, my reaction was to think: how could they just turn up and smile in a city where they knew that their daughter is living, breathing and working? I slammed my computer shut. I knew too much.
It was the resolute happiness that was shocking, and my mum's profile picture continued to nag me all week. Then it hit me: if she ever saw my profile then I'd be smiling back. My page is a savvy edit of my best happenings – picnics, festivals, and holidays in Barcelona. There are no posts about the sleepless nights and awkward moments where I struggle to explain to people why I don't "have a family". I didn't post a screenshot of the letters I sent them, trying to discuss our feud rationally and asking the questions that were natural to ask.
Perhaps I've been quietly coerced into thinking that positivity is the currency in which our online profiles trade, and so I instinctively stay away from the sombre. This illustrates the dichotomy inherent to social networking: the digital world allows for "togetherness" in which we "share our lives" with people around the world - yet conversely it can distance us from friends' fully dimensional experiences of life.
This permanent state of online happiness, as projected by a profile, can be mentally destabilising for those with discordant relationships. Dr Joshua Coleman, a psychologist based in San Francisco who is a specialist in estrangement, and author of When Parents Hurt, observes: "We have never in our history been as accessible to our family and friends. Social media, on the one hand, allows us to connect quickly to those we love. On the other, it allows those that we love - or once loved – enormous power to reach us and hurt us from almost anywhere in the world."
He explains one easy way of doing that: "announcing critical events such as weddings, while not letting the family member know directly, and tormenting the person in isolation by posting photographs of events where they were absent."
It seems this issue is amplified by the prolific use of images. For me, the photographs I gazed at alluded to my parents' satisfaction in isolation, yet at the same time allowed me a vicarious experience of that happiness. For a few minutes I was really with them in London, experiencing their wonder and excitement – only to remember soon after that I wasn't really welcome, not with my questions.
This could be an issue with privacy, as my mother's photographs were all accessible without our being online friends. The question remains: should social networking sites step up and offer to help those who don't wish to be reminded of their estrangement? Facebook claims to have the advantage of being able to block users, whereas you wouldn't be able to block a person if you encountered them on the street.
Yet privacy settings on sites such as Facebook have long been documented as difficult to manoeuvre. You could argue that that's only really an issue for older users who might not be as web-savvy. But there was no way I could have prevented my mum from popping up as a "suggested friend" until it happened. She was linked to me through others. I had her old email stored in an old account. It was, in a sense, inevitable.
Then again, my experience is by no means definitive. Such gaps in privacy can allow others the glimpse of a life they may actually yearn to know about. In cases where an adult child becomes estranged, parents may see new grandchildren through profile pictures, keep tabs with their child's musings via Twitter, and celebrate job success through LinkedIn.
Yet estranged individuals can find that the primary advantage of social networking sites is that they offer a less intimidating route to reconciliation. Kevin Allan [not his real name] used them to overcome the anxiety of getting back in touch with his estranged family. He told me: "the action of adding someone [on a social network] isn't like calling [on the phone] or turning up on a doorstep. It's less confrontational." As a result of adding his father as a Facebook friend, Kevin was able to see parts of his life and they decided to meet.
For some, being a Facebook friend is enough to qualify as being in touch with their family, defying the stigma that surrounds estrangement. For many, the complexities of the relationship are what lead to the estrangement in the first place. Coleman says: "It's useful to remember the positive aspects to a person when thinking about reconciling with a family member. This will give us a better chance of seeing the process through. Social media may give an easy entry into a conversation by providing real-time achievements, events and points of shared interest." If social media can facilitate such positivity, albeit about career or personal life, it could be seen as a useful tool in developing the mindset needed for the reconciliation process itself.
Estrangement is a loss, and a unique loss. For the five years before my mother was a suggested friend, I knew my parents were in the world somewhere. But only through social media did I find out exactly where. I asked Coleman if it is ever really possible to be estranged from your family when online culture is so prevalent. His answer seems straightforward: "Yes. But you need to stay off your computer."
It's a tall order. I work in a world that demands an online presence, and there are many like me who can't work without those tools. I can't delete my digital life. It seems my only option is to wait anxiously for another reminder of my parents' denial and my difficult childhood to rap loudly at my digital door, wrapped in a smiling suggestion that we hook up. Except the computer that has mediated the meeting has no concept of life or its complications - only tables in a database that have found a match.
Becca Bland worked on the BBC Radio 4 series The Digital Human. For more about estrangement in the digital age visit the webpage for 'The Digital Human'

House passes Cispa cybersecurity bill with support of 92 Democrats

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act passes by 288-127 but civil liberties concerns could lead to Obama veto

House intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers, left, with the committee's ranking Democrat, CA "Dutch" Ruppersberger. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP

The House of Representatives on Thursday passed legislation meant to help companies and the government share information on cyber threats, even though concerns linger about the amount of protection the bill offers for private information.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (known as Cispa) passed 288-127, receiving bipartisan support as 92 Democrats voted in favor. But the White House threatened this week to veto the legislation if further civil liberties and privacy protections are not added.
"We have a constitutional obligation to defend this nation," said the bill's co-author, intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, on the House floor, arguing that cyber attacks and espionage, particularly from China, are now the top US national security and economic threats. "This is the answer to empower cyber information sharing to protect this nation, to allow those companies to protect themselves and move on to economic prosperity. If you want to take a shot across China's bow, this is the answer."
However, the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, reflected concerns shared by the White House and many civil liberties groups, arguing that the bill did not do enough to ensure that companies, in sharing cyber threat data, strip out any personal data of US citizens. "They can just ship the whole kit and caboodle and we're saying minimize what is relevant to our national security," the California Democrat said. "The rest is none of the government's business."
Trying to put some of the privacy concerns to rest, House intelligence committee leaders endorsed an amendment that made the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice – agencies that are civil, not military – the clearing houses of the digital data exchange. Nonetheless, the future of cybersecurity legislation in the Senate remains unclear, given President Obama's veto threat and a lack of action from Senate Democrats.
Several influential industry groups had come out in support of the bill, including the wireless group CTIA, the US Chamber of Commerce and TechNet, which represents large internet and technology companies.

Google's first-quarter results show mobile ad sales stabilising

Internet firm earned $3.3bn in first three months of the year even as average ad price falls by 6% in competition with Facebook

Google may face joint legal action from European countries over data protection concerns. The regulators could even sue to block Google from operating in Europe. Photograph: Britta Pedersen/EPA

Google's latest quarterly results provided further proof that the Internet search leader is figuring out how to make more money as Web surfers migrate from personal computers to mobile devices.
The first-quarter numbers released Thursday show that a recent decline in Google's average ad prices is easing. That's an indication that marketers are starting to pay more for the ads that Google distributes to smartphones and tablet computers.
Mobile ads so far have fetched less money than those viewed on the larger screens of laptop and desktop computers. Google's average price, or the "cost per click" to advertisers, has fallen from the previous year in six consecutive quarters, including the opening three months of the year.
But the latest decrease in average ad prices was just 4%. By comparison, Google's average ad price fell by 6% during the final three months of last year and by 12% during last year's first quarter.
Google's stock increased $4.09, or 0.5%, to $770 in extended trading after the numbers came out.
Google is a good way to monitor the health of digital commerce because it runs the Internet's largest advertising network and is now a major player in the mobile computing market. It's also one of the world's most powerful companies, so what happens to it can affect millions of people and businesses.
Google Inc earned $3.3bn, or $9.94 per share, during the opening three months of the year. That was a 16% increase from $2.9bn, or $8.75 per share, last year.
If not for certain expenses, Google said it would have earned $11.58 per share. That figure exceeded the average earnings estimate of $10.65 per share among analysts surveyed by FactSet.
Revenue climbed 31% from last year to $14bn.
After subtracting advertising commissions, Google's revenue totaled $11bn about $33m below analyst estimates.
Google has been growing at an impressive clip for a company of its size. Its ability to keep growing has given the company a market value of more than $250bn, second only to Apple Inc. among technology companies.
Yet it faces competition with Facebook Inc for ad dollars and attention. For a time, Facebook's popularity had people worried that it would eventually become a more important advertising vehicle than Google's search engine.
Google has countered that by establishing its own social network, Google Plus.
It also makes the most widely used smartphone operating system, Android.
That gives the company channels for sending ads to mobile phone users, through built-in Google apps such as YouTube, maps and search. It is Facebook that has responded to Google's strengths in mobile advertising: Facebook took advantage of Android's openness and release a new app this month to make its social network front and center on phones.
Google dominates the mobile search market with 93% of US mobile search advertising dollars, according to eMarketer. Facebook is at No. 2, ahead of online music service Pandora Inc. and Twitter. EMarketer expects US mobile ad spending to grow 77% this year to $7.29bn, from $4.11bn last year.

Can I downgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 7?

Ben's wife has a new Dell laptop running Microsoft Windows 8, and he's trying to downgrade it to Windows 7

Windows 8 was first launched in 2012, but is it a good idea to downgrade to Windows 7? Photograph: Justin Lane/EPA

I don't expect you've tried replacing Windows 8 with Windows 7 Pro. Well, it's not that simple! I'm attempting to change the operating system on my wife's new Dell laptop from Windows 8 to 64-bit Windows 7 Pro. I spent three hours last night, found that I had to change the Registry, attempted to do this four times and then gave up! Is there a way to get the laptop to boot up from the CD/DVD drive?
Ben
You're right: I haven't tried replacing Windows 8 with Windows 7 Pro, so I can only point to the dark areas and say "here be dragons". In fact, I recommend against it, because I don't see the point: you end up with an operating system that does not work as well as Windows 8, or possibly at all. It's simpler to change Windows 8 so the user interface (UI) is more like Windows 7.
Either way, I trust you took a full back-up of the original hard drive and created whatever restore media the system recommended before embarking on your adventure. You should never make changes that you can't reverse, and that's your (and every other reader's)
responsibility, not mine.

Things have changed

There may be problems with downgrading a Windows 8 PC, partly because some have new form factors (tablet/laptop hybrids) that were never designed to run Windows 7. Windows 8 PCs are also different from the previous generation in having a new UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) system with Secure Boot and Fast Startup. Further, they use a GPT (GUID Partition Table) to control the disk partitioning, rather than the old MBR (Master Boot Record), which was vulnerable to rootkit malware.
A Dell Windows 8 hard drive may have a UEFI System Partition, an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) Partition, two Recovery Partitions for refreshing and restoring the operating system, and a Primary partition that includes Windows 8 and its applications. The Primary partition is the one you can see.
The new system is designed to protect users from malware (Apple and Android tablets and mobile phones are locked down in a similar way), and to enable people to rescue their PCs if something goes wrong.
All these things are a great step forward for the 99% of users who buy a PC with an integrated operating system and never want to change it.
They make things harder for the 1% who do, but at least Secure Boot can be disabled: you don't have to find a security flaw that can be used to "jailbreak" a PC.
But if you can get Windows 7 installed, you may find that you don't have all the drivers required to support the Windows 8 hardware, and it's unlikely that the PC manufacturer will supply them. Some PC manufacturers may also refuse to provide software support if you're not running the original operating system. I would expect them to provide hardware support, though they might insist you re-install the original software first. (If you don't, support personnel can't run through the standard tests and scripts they have for your hardware.)
Perhaps you should contact Dell support before going further.

Business or consumer version?

There are two different cases with downgrades, for consumer and business machines. First, there's the Windows 8 sold to consumers pre-installed as part of a package deal. This does not have downgrade rights, so you will need a full copy of Windows 7 and a product key to install and activate it. Retail copies of Windows 7 are not cheap.
You don't have a licence to install a copy of Windows 7 from another PC, even if you have the DVD. If you install it, Microsoft will refuse to activate it.
Second, there's the Windows 8 Pro sold to businesses. Microsoft knows that businesses like to keep all their PCs running the same operating system and they are slow to adopt new ones, so the Pro versions of Windows include downgrade rights. This means that Microsoft expects many businesses to replace Windows 8 Pro with 7 Pro.
If your wife's Dell is a business machine, it could have Windows 8 Pro installed, so a downgrade to 7 Pro should be relatively simple. Start by disabling Secure Boot in Windows 8's Settings and use the Legacy BIOS (Basic Input/Output System) provided for backwards compatibility.
In the BIOS, change the Legacy Boot Order to DVD. I would also disable the Fast Boot system which is hidden away in a System Settings screen under Power Options.
You should now be able to reboot and install a full copy of Windows 7 Pro in the usual way, but you will have to enter a valid product key.
This key will fail online activation, so you will need to activate it over the phone. To do this, tell Microsoft you are downgrading and tell it the Windows 8 Pro key from your wife's Dell.

Home options

If it's a consumer version of Windows 8, you may still have a number of options. You can try installing your full copy of Windows 7 alongside Windows 8 in a dual-boot format (see How to Dual Boot Windows 8 with Windows 7) or perhaps install it in a "virtual PC". (Windows 8 Pro comes with a powerful virtual PC called Client Hyper-V, but it's not part of the consumer version, which I have not got.)
If you can boot from your Windows 7 DVD, you should be able to install it as a replacement operating system, rather than a downgrade. The 64-bit version of Windows 7 Pro supports GPT partitions, and it should work if you choose Custom (Advanced), select a partition and click Format. (Obviously this will delete the contents of that partition.)
If not, you could take the nuclear option, and reformat the whole hard drive.
Alternatively, perhaps you could restore your wife's Dell to its Windows 8 factory condition, swap in a new hard drive, and do a clean installation of Windows 7. This avoids the problem of removing Windows 8 without being able to complete the installation or activation of Windows 7. If this results in a non-working PC, you can put the original drive back.
Suffice it to say that the downgrade is not a quick option, unless you're an IT department with a volume licensing deal and access to drive images that you can simply copy across. It's a much better idea to buy a business PC that ships with Windows 7 installed and includes a free upgrade to Windows 8.

The software option

But I think there are better options. The best idea is to learn how to use Windows 8, which doesn't take long. The equivalent of the Windows 7 desktop is still there underneath the Start screen, and it only takes one click to get to it.
If your wife doesn't want to do that, you can install software that changes or bypasses the Start screen altogether. Stardock's $4.99 Start8 looks like a good solution. It lets you boot straight to the Windows 8 desktop and makes it work more like Windows 7.
With Start8, you don't lose the speed, security improvements and new features in Windows 8, and you can still run the modern (tablet-style)
app included with Windows 8 or downloaded from the Windows Store.
Later this year, Microsoft may do something similar to Start8 with its Windows 8.1 update, known as Blue. Indeed, users can expect a stream of improvements as Microsoft sorts out problems and responds to criticisms. Windows 8 is a work in progress, but it's not going away.

The future of Windows

Windows 8 represents a huge new undertaking. It provides a compatible interface on everything from mobile phones and touch-based tablets (and perhaps a new Xbox games console) through laptops and desktops to mainframe class servers. It includes new cloud services via a Microsoft identity (so any Windows 8 machine becomes your Windows 8 machine when you log in), powerful search and sharing, a shiny new platform architecture for programmers (Windows Runtime or WinRT), and the new Windows Store, among other things. It's part of a significant advance into a future where Microsoft believes most devices will be mobile, touch-oriented and always connected. Those are all areas where Windows 7 falls short.
In addition, Windows 8 brings in a modern design language that puts "content before chrome". It's already visible in Windows 8 and Microsoft Office, in the new Outlook.com email service that has replaced Hotmail, and in the free Microsoft Office programs in SkyDrive. Similar user interfaces are also being adopted by independent websites under the "flat UI" slogan: see, for example, What is flat design?.
Microsoft still has a lot of work to do, but it has time. The bulk of its sales and profits come from business versions of Windows and Windows applications on PCs and servers, and Microsoft will support businesses using Windows 7 until at least 2020.
My main machines are still running Windows 7 as well. But in 2020, perhaps most of us will be on Windows 10, and looking back, we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

Microsoft signs Chrome and Android deal with Foxconn parent Hon Hai

Software giant's deal with parent firm of manufacturer Foxconn covers devices using Google's smartphone system and browser

Microsoft Surface tablets. The software giant has signed a licensing deal with manufacturer Hon Hai for running Google Android and Chrome OS in devices, covering smartphones, tablets and TVs. Photograph: Microsoft/EPA

Besides Samsung, there's one other company making Android pay:Microsoft. The software giant just signed a patent licensing agreement – including unspecified payment terms – with Hon Hai, the parent of manufacturing company Foxconn for devices running Google's mobile operating system Android and Google's desktop Chrome OS.

Significantly, the agreement says that it covers "smartphones, tablets and televisions", suggesting Microsoft has now broadened the scope of patents that it is using to pursue Android – and now Chrome OS too – to include GoogleTV, which has so far failed to take off significantly.

Google does not charge device manufacturers a licence fee for Android or Chrome OS – unlike Microsoft, which charges manufacturers for the use of Windows Phone, Windows and Windows RT licences. But unlike Google, Microsoft provides coverage against patent lawsuits arising from the use of its operating software. Google's purchase in 2012 of Motorola Mobility, with a patent portfolio whose value it estimated at $5bn (£3.3bn), was meant to fend off such attacks – but so far that has failed.

Of Android handset makers, only Samsung is making significant profits, despite shipments of smartphones running the software exceeding 144m in the fourth quarter of 2012.

HTC was one of the first companies to sign a deal with Microsoft, in April 2010. Acer, Viewsonic, Samsung, LG, Sharp and Nikon have also signed similar deals, which are thought to pay the US company between $5 and $15 per device.

That could mean Microsoft is bringing in at least $500m in revenues from Android – this will in effect all be profit once legal costs are defrayed.

In the latest deal, Microsoft will get unspecified per-device royalties from Hon Hai for Android or Chrome OS devices it makes under its own name or as a "white label" manufacturer for other companies which haven't struck a deal with Microsoft.

The deal with Foxconn is the 19th known to have been made by an Android manufacturer with Microsoft, which has a gigantic patent portfolio covering many technologies that are now routinely used in mobile systems.

Apple is one of the biggest users of Hon Hai, which assembles the iPad and iPhone for it, but a mutual patent licensing deal with Microsoft means that it is unaffected.

Microsoft and Google, meanwhile, are bitter rivals, and Steve Ballmer's company has been seeking any way it can to undermine Google's success – including the threat of court action against Android manufacturers unless they sign patent deals. So far, only Motorola Mobility has held out against the licence demands, and is fighting a number of long-running court battles with Microsoft in Europe and the US in which it is asserting a number of its standards-essential patents relating to H.264 video decoding and Wi-Fi wireless networking in court cases, alleging Microsoft needs to make substantial payments.

But the effect has so far been minimal, with American and European competition authorities instead warning Google about Motorola's misuse of patents that it had pledged to standards bodies would be licensed on an equal basis to all comers.