and, of course Cisco proprietary…

Well faster tubes need faster tubes not just faster intersections.

and, of course Cisco proprietary…

Oh well it could be worse like the anti-innovation, third party creativity legal chill strategy followed by Apple and Microsoft.  See Apple’s current threats against Google and HTC for an illustrative example of same. Of course sometimes when Bill or Steve try this kind of thing they get awesomely bitch slapped themselves:

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-threatened-to-sue-me-too-says-ex-sun-ceo-jonathan-schwartz-2010-3

I agree: the threats against Google and HTC are repulsive—imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all. True, Apple legally must protect its IP, but why not just do what everyone else does and license the technology?

Nokia also falls into the “rather litigate than innovate” group, kinda shameful.

Routing protocols are a huge, huge lock in, and my personal experience with Cisco was very, very bad—they make Apple and Microsoft seem like Cherubim.

Here’s a nice guide to the odious predatory patent registration strategy being followed by Apple to try to deter competition for its products.  This is a shot gun approach to patent registrations with many rather dubious (i.e. f*cking joke IMO) filings. E.g. Apple files a patent for Object oriented programs. O’rly?

The Sun CEO response above illustrates the folly of this glass houses IP rights stone throwing.  Philosophically it is anti-innovation and anti-creativity.  Google’s open source (well let’s call it not-quite-actually-open-source) Android exists primarily to insulate Google from Apple and Microsoft. It is also despite some not quite open source issues very much pro-innovation and pro-third party creativity.

[1]Routing protocols are a huge, huge lock in, and my personal experience with Cisco was very, very bad—they make Apple and Microsoft seem like Cherubim.

I don’t have experience with the back end infrastructure side and don’t doubt you assessment.

If you look at the Big Four on the retail front, it is fascinating (to me) to see how these players are and will adapt and adjust to the device convergence revolution that is underway.

Microsoft has XBL, games and Office; Apple sells a lot of music, but owns no content beyond software. It is a hardware company and a service provider; Google has Android, YouTube and whatever user-generated content, has its enormous investment published book scan project (all public domain and in copyright but out of print works books in North American libraries - which has had its legal issue resolved) but creates little proprietary content of its own. Sony has its PS3, fledgling PSN, and games but stands alone amongst the Big Four with a rich content library of music, television, movies (as well as games). It is also the player that has more than any other lost the plot.

I have a dream of a Sony Google affiliation with Sony running Android and making the best android phone/PSP mobile device (kill the Sony Ericsson mobile products boondoggle) Android is really Linux and Sony has experience with Linux in its PS2 and to a limited extent in PS3. Android as an operating system, is probably better than anything Sony ever came up with in-house. Sony’s software engineers could spend their time building easy-to-use and beautiful user experiences on top of the unified platform.

The biggest hurdle for such a scenario is Sony’s arrogance.

Homes and businesses still rely on ISPs for internet connection. Throttling, bandwidth caps, favored content all hamper users. What good is even 25MPS if you get throttled back to 3.5MPS whenever you use a bit torrent client (it happens, believe me)?