The Atlanta-based company’s mobile app tries to be a resource to consumers who are looking for local merchants and events, sort of like the Web’s original CitySearch service from years ago — except that it’s on mobile. The app also distributes coupons to restaurants, but instead of charging consumers for the deals, like Groupon does, they are free, and merchants pay a flat rate to Scoutmob each time one is redeemed.

Investors in the company’s second round include AOL Ventures, New Atlantic Ventures, Capital Broadcasting, Cox Enterprises and Thrillist CEO Ben Lerer. To date, Scoutmob has raised $5 million, which means that even if it wanted to, it doesn’t have the resources to go up against Groupon and LivingSocial.

In an interview, Scoutmob co-founder Michael Tavani said the company gets lumped into the daily deals category, but said that from day one, “we tried to differentiate ourselves and to be more of a mobile company.”

So far, the strategy has worked.

The app, which is available free on iOS, BlackBerry and Android, has 1.2 million users who have redeemed one million offers. To date, the company has launched in 10 cities, with varying success rates. Some markets, like Seattle, don’t have many deals yet, while other cities, like Atlanta or Washington, D.C., are used more.

Because of its emphasis on mobile, the company was also able to to score a partnership with payment processing company First Data Corporation.

“It’s crazy, we are a two-and-a-half year-old company, and every week we have the largest payment companies in the world contacting us,” Tavani said. ”They are worried that if they don’t have mobile engagement, then what do they have?”

First Data processes about 55 percent of all transactions in the U.S., and will help Scoutmob close the loop of offering a discount, making a purchase and earning loyalty points.

The new funding will be used to support the company’s next wave of product development, which will include building out a mobile rewards program with the help of First Data and other payment companies it signs up.

Tavani said it will work like this: When users make a purchase at a Scoutmob location using a credit card, they’ll accrue points automatically. Once enough points have been accumulated, they can be redeemed at any Scoutmob retail location.

Unlike traditional loyalty programs, which require consumers to go to the same coffee shop 10 times in order to earn a free coffee, Scoutmob will let consumers earn and redeem points by visiting any merchant in its network. It’s similar to frequent flyer programs, where miles can be earned at a variety of merchants and then redeemed at a handful of airlines.

“We want to be the equivalent of an airline reward program, but for local,” Tavani said. “That’s exactly what we want to be.”

Scoutmob has landed in a sector spanning local businesses and mobile payments, which is ripe from innovation and extremely crowded by well-funded start-ups and massively large incumbents. But Tavani argues that it’s a level playing field.

“There’s going to be multiple players and lots of winners,” he said. “Groupon and LivingSocial are two with a gigantic lead. But we can go out and visit merchants today — there’s no one preventing us from having those conversations.”

Bloomberg News is reporting that the jury has been dimissed, and that there will be no third phase of the trial, which was to have focused on damages in the event that Oracle prevailed.

The win for Google in the patent phase comes on top of a narrow but hollow victory for Oracle, in which the enterprise software giant won a part of its argument, but failed to make it stick in a way that would make any difference to either company.

Asked to decide whether Google had infringed upon Oracle’s copyrights to certain parts of the Java programming language, the jury — the same jury that came out in Google’s favor today — agreed that it had. Then asked to decide on four specific examples of that infringement, jurors could agree on only one that cracked the threshold of being sufficiently egregious to warrant any damages. And in that case, the damages amount to no more than $200,000, probably less than it cost to litigate in the first place.

Google shares rose slightly by $2.09 to $602.89 or less than 1 percent. Oracle shares fell slightly by 6 cents to $26.30.

Oracle put out this statement:

Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.

Meanwhile, here’s Google’s statement, which reads like a victory lap:

Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem.

Two quick snapshots, via Cristina Cordova, using stats from AppData. Here’s the usage data for the Washington Post’s Social Reader. Note the second steep drop, in the middle of this month:

And the Guardian’s, which has the same pattern and the same mid-May drop:

Note that Cordova runs biz dev for Pulse, the iOS/Android news reader app, so she’s presumably not unhappy about this trend.

But I don’t have a dog in the fight, and I’m delighted with it myself. I’ve always thought the “social reader” apps were bad ideas, executed poorly: I don’t need to automatically know what my friends are reading — I only want to know about the articles they want me to read, and they’re pretty good about telling me that. And I don’t want to have to use an app to read them — the Web works just fine.

The new digerati consensus is that the drops don’t indicate a sudden revulsion by Facebook users, but that they’re the result of Facebook engineers twisting the dials, and ensuring that Facebook users don’t see the apps in their feeds anymore.

There’s an important lesson there for any Facebook partner or would-be partner (hello, Socialcam!). But as a Facebook user, I don’t really care — I’m just glad I don’t have to see these things anymore.

This patent dispute, one of several between the companies, centers on Microsoft’s ActiveSync technology. Ultimately, the ruling could lead to the ban of imports of Motorola products that infringe on the patent in question.

“Microsoft sued Motorola in the ITC only after Motorola chose to refuse Microsoft’s efforts to renew a patent license for well over a year,” Microsoft deputy general counsel David Howard said in a statement. “We’re pleased the full Commission agreed that Motorola has infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property, and we hope that now Motorola will be willing to join the vast majority of Android device makers selling phones in the U.S. by taking a license to our patents.”

The ITC issued an initial finding of infringement in this case back in December.

Motorola, for its part, notes that it can continue shipping products during a 60-day presidential review process and said it will ponder its options. It also noted that Microsoft had originally sought a ruling that Motorola had infringed on nine patents.

“Although we are disappointed by the Commission’s ruling that certain Motorola Mobility products violated one patent, we look forward to reading the full opinion to understand its reasoning,” Motorola said in a statement. “We will explore all options including appeal.”

Motorola said it will be required to post a 33-cents-per-unit bond for products it ships during the 60-day review period.

This dispute is separate from other conflicts between the two companies, including one related to Microsoft’s Xbox. Motorola has won an initial ruling it its favor from the ITC in that case.

Big video games like Mass Effect 3 and Halo 4 aren’t going away anytime soon. But a growing cadre of independent games developers is taking the road less traveled — keeping teams tiny and visions narrow.

In fact, they say they don’t want to grow. And despite that unorthodox philosophy, they’re reaching big audiences, making some impressive money and shaking up the games industry as a whole.

These independent developers, or “indie devs,” fill a huge spectrum of opinions about what video games can and should be. But, as with their counterparts in music and movies, it’s not always easy to nail down which games are indie and which aren’t.

Up-and-coming publishers like Zynga and Rovio started out small and indie, of course. In the loosest sense, the term applies to pretty much anyone who’s not one of the big legacy game companies, such as Nintendo, Sega or Electronic Arts.

However, after they put out a hit or two, a few independents peel off from the pack by continually hiring and growing. Contrast Zynga, which has nearly 3,000 employees at 21 offices around the world, with unconventional companies such as San Francisco-based Bolt Creative, where the two co-founders pointedly avoided hiring anyone but themselves.

“We made a decision to stay small,” said Dave Castlenuovo, Bolt’s only programmer. “To me, I get the most enjoyment working out of my home, getting to see my wife.”

Castlenuovo and his design partner Allan Dye eschewed the new-normal start-up song-and-dance: Securing VC funding, finding office space and building a company on the idea of scaling bigger and bigger.

Instead, they found huge success, despite staying small, with their flagship game Pocket God. The game lets sadistic smartphone owners punish an island of perennially doomed cartoon pygmies.

Pocket God was a one-off project started in late 2008, which went from idea to a first version on the iPhone App Store in about a week, Castlenuovo said.

But it has outperformed most one-week larks. The 99-cent app and its downloadable extras have earned about $7.5 million so far.

And the game’s pygmy characters have racked up an additional $600,000 through a spinoff comic book series, which is not bad for a two-man team.

So, how does a little operation such as Bolt Creative thrive while a company like Nintendo, with access to some of the world’s top talent and most beloved video game characters, is reporting to investors its first annual loss since 1981?

Part of it, of course, is the conventional wisdom that smaller start-ups are just nimbler on their feet. But to get at the real answer, you have to look primarily at three big companies: Valve, Apple and Facebook.

On PCs, Valve’s Steam Store eliminated the need for developers to get their games distributed in brick-and-mortar stores in order to find a mass paying audience of gamers. Mobile app marketplaces, starting with Apple’s on iOS, similarly leveled the playing ground for smartphone game developers.

And games have also infiltrated social networking sites, especially Facebook, although the spoils are decidedly lopsided: Zynga alone was responsible for 15 percent of the company’s revenue in the first quarter of 2012.

To raise the money to make new games, new avenues are also springing up fast. In March, San Francisco-based Double Fine Productions solicited donations on Kickstarter for a new point-and-click adventure game in the style of the classic games made by its founder, Tim Schafer. They met their $400,000 goal in about eight hours and ultimately raised $3.3 million from Kickstarter users.

These sorts of developers don’t always have it easy: They have to do more with less, taking on more responsibilities than they might have to in much larger teams. And they can’t bank on legacy pieces of intellectual property for success.

Not that this is an equally bad fate for everyone. For his part, Castlenuovo compares himself to Robert Rodriguez, an independent filmmaker who famously produces, writes, directs, shoots and edits most of his movies solo.

“I enjoy wearing many hats,” Castlenuovo said.

Plus, indie devs can now focus more on making the games they’re most passionate about and less on how they’re going to sell them, at least initially.

Derek van Vliet, co-founder of a Toronto-based indie shop called Get Set Games, seems to be in a good place. His company’s casual iPhone/Android game Mega Jump, initially developed by just three people (now upped to four), has racked up 24 million downloads since May of 2010.

But van Vliet grumbled that bigger companies like Electronic Arts can temporarily take over app store charts by throwing around the weight of some of their biggest properties, including Madden, Tetris and Scrabble.

“That’s getting a lot from very little work for them,” he said.

For better or for worse, the business of games is not a meritocracy. But it might be a mistake to assume it’s all one big, cohesive business in the first place. After all, the devs say, isn’t at least some of what we’re doing art?

Art vs. entertainment?

If you want to quickly start a fight on the Internet, you should follow Roger Ebert’s lead and assert in broad strokes that video games are not and will never be art. Even among the game developer community, the dividing line between art and entertainment is fuzzy at best and may be impossible to place outright.

After all, some games are just casual fun. But others are deeply personal for their creators and, if you believe their many fans, are more meaningful and higher-quality as a result.

George Fan, co-creator of Plants vs. Zombies, said he knows his game is a piece of entertainment, which he developed independently and later distributed through PopCap before EA bought the company in 2011. But he questioned whether art and indie projects even have a chance amid the business pressures at EA.

“It’s pretty much as far as you could get from indie in any company,” Fan said.

Castlenuovo echoed the sentiment, noting big companies are best able to serve their investors when they focus on making top-10 hits.

“I’m going to stick with the creativity,” he said.

Even if you accept that some developers are making artful games, getting others to appreciate them in that way is an uphill battle. In the delightful new documentary “Indie Game: The Movie,” developer Jonathan Blow explains how his indie mega-hit Braid explores the concept of trying to reverse past mistakes by giving players the ability to rewind time.

However, the directors then cut to an online video reaction to the game from Soulja Boy. The young rapper enthusiastically tells his fans that Braid “ain’t got no point … you just walking around, jumpin’ on shit.”

Still, when developers can work by themselves or on very small teams, rather than as part of a publicly traded company, they’re freer to pursue “passion projects” that mean more to them. On the surface, that’s good, but it can also be a sort of psychological poison.

For Leo Alterman, a hobbyist indie dev and senior at Stanford University, making games is about recreating a sense of wonder he felt as a child playing Nintendo 64. And he’s not just talk: A game he built from scratch starting in high school, Tasty Static, has racked up 100,000 free downloads online in the past two years.

But Alterman said he could never make games his profession — the personal stakes are just too high.

“If you’re doing that as a job, and you fuck it up, then yeah, you’re kind of in trouble,” he said.

Indie devs straddle the stressful line between living to work and working to live. Despite his quest for childlike wonder, Alterman describes himself as morbid, and he’s in good company: In “Indie Game: The Movie,” one developer compares his work to being in a concentration camp as a major deadline approaches. Another earnestly threatens to kill himself if he can’t finish his game as planned.

“So, that’s my incentive,” he deadpans.

It seems unlikely that gamers would look at the latest update to Madden or Words With Friends and use it to judge those games’ creators. But Edmund McMillen, co-creator of the popular (and maddeningly difficult) indie platformer game Super Meat Boy, said the game and its public image are so tied to his story and personality that it’s impossible not to feel judged.

“We put everything into it,” McMillen said of himself and his “Team Meat” partner Tommy Refenes. “We are the game.”

The mainstream response

Just as with indie music and movies, there’s a more emotional response to the idea of a game produced by one or two people than one produced by a faceless company. And finding indie game developers who are willing to question the values of big games companies — like EA and Zynga — is like finding sand on a beach.

“That doesn’t seem like art to me,” the hobbyist dev Alterman said of Zynga, which did not respond to requests for comment. “They’re playing a different game.”

“Zynga’s a business,” Team Meat’s McMillen said. “I would go so far as to say they don’t even make games. They make money.”

“That sounds like hell to me,” Refenes says in “Indie Game: the Movie,” after he’s asked about working at EA or Epic Games.

Plus, players are responding to independent developers in a big way. According to the mobile app analytics and advertising firm Flurry, 56 percent of all mobile games played in Q1 2011 were made by indie devs; one year later, in Q1 2012, that share had jumped to 68 percent.

But those opinions and trends don’t seem to deter Rich Hilleman, EA’s chief creative officer and one of the company’s first 20 employees from the early 80s. He’s careful to praise talented indie devs who have gone on to join EA, but also stresses the administrative headaches that come with staying small.

“I want to not have to worry about clearing credit cards and legal issues and translating this stuff into Maltese,” he said. “I think you recognize that it was fun to be independent, except that that stuff wasn’t all that fun.”

When Hilleman joined EA, the company didn’t do any development in-house; it was solely a publisher that connected independent game designers with bigger audiences. Within the gaming world, the company helped make rock stars out of developers like Bill Budge, whose game, Pinball Construction Set, was packaged like a music album, with Budge’s name in giant script on the front.

Not really something you’d see today. I’ve sunk countless hours into EA’s Need for Speed racing game on my iPhone, but I couldn’t tell you the name of a single person who helped make it.

When I told him this, Hilleman countered that customers, not publishers, are the ones who decide who the stars are, although it’s hard not to wonder why that star status doesn’t correlate with hugely popular games like EA’s Star Wars: The Old Republic, which gained 1 million subscribers within three days of its launch last year.

Hilleman readily volunteers that one of the closest modern rock-star successors to Bill Budge is an indie dev: Notch, the creator of Minecraft. In the past three years, Notch’s sandbox game has built an extremely passionate community of over 16 million players, despite having primarily three programmers listed in its credits.

Despite all this, Hilleman draws a firm line in the sand in opposition to independent developers who say they’re freer to pursue “passion projects” than developers at EA.

“Building video games is just hard,” Hilleman said. “There is no such thing as building something you do not like. It just does not happen.”

Of course that doesn’t mean life is necessarily easier for devs who, at big companies, don’t have to translate anything into Maltese. James Swirsky, co-director of “Indie Game: The Movie,” said he saw plenty of hardship in his two years as a games tester at EA.

Devs there, he said, “were just as stressed out and pushed to the brink as the guys you see in the film.”

The key difference

Independent game developers share a lot of DNA with their big-business brethren, and the differences aren’t big enough to merit a culture war or to force audiences to choose between one or the other.

Furthermore, the mainstream world is not clueless: EA has learned its lessons from the years in the mid-aughts when console games seemed stuck in a rut, and has tried to reach out to and learn from the independent community — although Hilleman is quick to point out the irony of the situation, since in the 80s “Electronic Arts” was still small enough to be synonymous with the indie scene.

Meanwhile, Zynga has established a successful pattern of growing by acquisition, looking for the independent shops that are happy to sell out (not that that’s a bad thing, as OMGPOP and others can tell you).

But there’s still a key difference between the independents and the rest, and everyone watching the gaming space should note: With the rise of indie games as an economic force to be reckoned with, the charges are set for an explosion of creativity in the gaming world in the coming years. Indie devs have been around for decades, but now it’s easier than ever for them to make a comfortable living while making the games they personally pick and love.

The “hardcore” gamer community often derides social games on Facebook and mobile devices as too simplistic. But that will change. Games will get better and more ambitious as barriers to entry continue to fall and more outlier voices come into the mix.

With indies coming into the spotlight, games may finally be able to come into their own. Call it a real-world power-up.

Recently, Funzio sold to Japan’s Gree for $210 million, and Zynga acquired OMGPOP for $180 million; not too long before that, Electronic Arts paid $750 million for PopCap.

In an interview, Pocket Gem’s COO Ben Liu said that mobile game companies are hot commodities right now, but to sell is shortsighted.

“We feel like it’s the early days of mobile,” Liu said. “There’s a decade-long shift occurring from PC and the Web to mobile, and games is only the first vertical to take off. There’s so much opportunity. We need all of our attention on that to be successful.”

Liu would not disclose the company’s revenue, but said that it has been growing extremely fast. Over the past year and a half, the company has moved its offices five times to accommodate the growth of its staff — from 10 to 120 employees.

And as of a few months ago, the company recorded 60 million app downloads since its founding in 2009. Its hit title Tap Zoo generated 20 million downloads alone.

Pocket Gems’ games fall into the “casual” genre, and are focused on building products that have fairly addicting play; they attract a predominantly adult female audience. The games normally have “tap” in the name — Tap Zoo, Tap Pet Hotel and Tap Jungle allow players to build, respectively, their own zoo, pet hotel and mystical rain forest.

Last week, Pocket Gems released its first game exclusively for Android, called Tap Dragon Park, which allows players to train dragons to defend their kingdoms.

Pocket Gems has been able to rise in the rankings without having to tap investors too much. (Maybe their next game will be Tap Bank?) It has raised $5 million in capital from Sequoia Capital and a handful of angel investors, and is profitable.

Here are Liu’s thoughts on some of the issues facing the mobile games industry.

On making acquisitions versus being acquired:

Liu says Pocket Gems isn’t entertaining offers at this time, but will consider making acquisitions of its own. “We’ve been completely focused on organic expansion, but I think as we continue to grow, something we’ll look at is acquisitions, as well. We are focused on building a great team organically, and are opportunistic.”

How many games can you release in a year?

“Last year, we launched 10 games total. Some of them are new IP that requires a larger team and can be franchise-sustaining, and others are seasonal titles or extensions.”

Is there an issue with copycats in the space?

“Yes, all of our games have been cloned extensively by most of our competitors. But that’s one of the prices of success. We’ve always prided ourselves on being an innovator. The thing that is difficult to clone is creativity. … We have a saying: Pocket Gems is a leader and not a follower. And many of our competitors have a fast-follower strategy.”

What are your thoughts about third-party distribution platforms, like Gree and DeNA, which are trying to create mobile social networks?

“We haven’t opened our games to third parties. It’s in our interest to develop our own platform. Their businesses are really compelling, but there’s no winning platform yet in the mobile space. We have our own loyal community, which is a powerful game engine. We don’t want to be dependent on someone else’s platform. Our own great platform is a powerful source of marketing, and it is good at letting our users know about the games. That’s the most effective.”

Is summer a good time for people to play and discover new mobile games?

“It’s a good time. People are on vacation and in transit, and it’s a natural device to use during those times. And people have more downtime and free time. We’ve found historically for it to be good. Holidays are another.”

There are a half-dozen flavors of the operating system, with products made by dozens of manufacturers and literally thousands of individual designs. Whether this is good or bad depends on one’s perspective.

But the sheer number of different products is mind-boggling. In a report this week, OpenSignalMaps looked at data from 600,000 users who downloaded its signal-measuring software. The company found that its software has been downloaded by nearly 4,000 different devices. Some of these are actually standard devices running custom software. But even factoring those out, there are still upward of 2,000 different Android products in the wild.

Of the nearly 600 different brands, Samsung rules the roost with nearly 40 percent market share, followed by HTC, SEMC, Motorola and LG. At the bottom end of the market-share battle, the company spotted a pair of the ill-fated Fusion Garage tablets and a handful of Polaroid’s smart cameras.

For its part, OpenSignalMaps notes the downsides of so many makes and models, but says that the opportunities outweigh the challenges.

“Developers tend to bemoan Android fragmentation yet there’s much here to be celebrated,” the company said in its report. “While the number of different models running Android will continue to increase we’ve seen Samsung take the lion’s share of the Android market, most of that due to the Galaxy product line. Testing on the most popular Samsung & HTC devices will get you a long way.”

Besides, Android means reaching to all corners of the globe. OpenSignalMaps says it has collected data from nearly 200 countries, with the most popular being the U.S., Brazil, China, Russia and Mexico.

“One of the joys of developing for Android is you have no idea who’ll end up using your app,” it said.

The report is chock full of interesting numbers and charts, and is well worth a read.

And some new numbers from Nielsen that chronicle the rise of “AppNation” on Android and iOS between March 2011 and March 2012 back up that notion. The study shows the average number of apps per smartphone has jumped from 32 apps to 41, and growth in time spent on app usage outpacing the growth in mobile Web usage on smartphones by a hefty margin.

And while Nielsen’s measure of the top five apps — Facebook, YouTube, Android Market, Google Search and Gmail — remained constant, the rest of the top 50 was more of an open playing field, with more than 20 percent of the remaining spots entering as new players, and plenty of maneuvering going on.

Data courtesy Nielsen

According to the latest metrics from Gartner — which measure sales of handsets to customers, not shipments into the channel — Samsung sold 86.6 million mobile phones in the first quarter, 25.9 percent more than it sold during the same period a year ago. That was enough to give it a 20.7 percent share of the market, and to seize the title of “world’s largest mobile handset vendor” from Nokia, which sold 83.2 million cellphones during the quarter, as its market share slipped to 19.8 percent from 25.1 percent a year ago.

Unfortunate news for Nokia, which had been the market’s leader since 1998, but inevitable given the company’s recent decline and, perhaps, its choice of Windows Phone as an OS for its newest handsets.

Because what’s driving Samsung’s growth is Android. According to Gartner’s sales data, Samsung was by far the largest Android smartphone vendor, claiming nearly 44 percent of Android-based smartphone sales. Interestingly, no other Android phone manufacturer captured more than 10 percent of the market.

So, if Samsung commandeered the handset market’s top spot in the first quarter, and Nokia its second, who claimed third? Apple, which sold enough iPhones to capture 7.9 percent of the total mobile phone market.

As for mobile OS market share, Android continues to rule the market — 56 percent of smartphones sold to end users globally in the first quarter of 2012 run the OS, far more than the 22.9 percent running Apple’s iOS.

UC’s next target is the U.S., where the company released localized Android and iOS versions this past week, and plans to open up a Silicon Valley office later this year. (It has already made inroads into India, where it has 20 percent share and is close to knocking off market leader Opera, execs said.)

UCWeb's Roy Rong and Yu Yongfu visit AllThingsD.

UC Browser is more than a just dumb container for Web sites; in China, the browser includes its own virtual currency accounts, identity system, social network and navigation services. In a way, it’s more like a mobile-only Facebook platform than the pure Chrome or Safari browsers.

Plus, UC browser is quite fast, because the company maintains local data centers from where it compresses Web sites and sends them to phones. Opera Mini and Amazon’s Kindle Fire Silk browser use similar techniques.

Bridging to the U.S. market won’t necessarily be easy, but UC’s design and experience across the spectrum of low- to high-end phones could be instructive.

CEO Yu Yongfu — who’s on a grand tour of Silicon Valley this week — emphasized that while his company started doing all this in 2004, the U.S. smartphone market only launched with the iPhone in 2007.

And beyond that three-year lead, China is supposed to oust the U.S. as the world’s biggest smartphone market this year.

Yu said he thinks he understands how to deal with the limitations of mobile — small screen size, reduced bandwidth, limited input, short battery life and some eight different operating systems — better than just about anyone.

Still, it’s not clear that the pillars of the UC Web strategy — compressing sites to speed up page loads, and bundling in services and shortcuts — will go over well in the U.S. smartphone market, where we have tended to like our browsers to just show Web pages for us, while leaving heavier lifting to dedicated apps.

UC Browser has 200 million active monthly users, with 50 million of them on Android and the rest spread across other platforms. It gets about a quarter of its users from deals to be preinstalled on phones, said CFO Roy Rong.

The new U.S. version of UC Browser for iPhone

Like other browsers, UC receives revenue through search referral agreements (in China, the default is Baidu; in the U.S., it’s Google). The UC app also includes paid links, display ads, and virtual goods sold in the Flash games it licenses for users. It has its own “app store,” and helps users save bookmarks to HTML5 apps on its home screen. It’s almost like a mobile Web OS.

Rong and Yu said they couldn’t think of any examples of Chinese Internet companies with significant usage in the U.S., so they are hoping to blaze that trail.

To get things started, they rented data centers in Los Angeles and Dallas, signed an agreement to bundle Evernote in UC Browser to help it get distribution in China and vice versa (and plan to do so with other apps), and tweaked the browser’s interface to be more spacious and empty.

For whatever reason, people in China seem to prefer more clutter, Rong said.