The Future of Android — Does It Belong To Bing and Baidu? 171
hype7 writes "Given the recent publicity about Android and Google, the Harvard Business Review are offering another interesting perspective. They argue that Google runs a serious risk of losing control of Android, as competitors such as Bing and Baidu move in. It certainly presents an interesting possibility — that Android could win but Google wouldn't see any benefit out of it."
"Harvard Business Review" needs more research (Score:3, Insightful)
Google controls the Andoird Market. Sure, manufacturers can roll their own markets if they want, but they will always be dwarfed by the offical one. No one is going to buy an Android phone that does not have access to the market. And Google can cut off access to any manufacturer at any time if they get too in-bed with Baidu or Microsoft.
Not to mention, the first thing anyone does who gets the stupid Bing phone from Verizon is uninstall it and put Google back. There has been such a consumer backlash that Verizon is backing out of the deal and putting Google back in newer handsets.
Any benefit ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on the definition of benefit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Followup... (Score:5, Insightful)
And as I predicted, utter crap.
Point 1: "Ohnoes, Bing's being used as the default search engine on a few Verizon phones!" Let's see... how important is this really? Anyone who cares will simply use Google (from the Market, or just in the browser, or if needed by sideloading)... as for revenue from search? I'm guessing much more of the revenue comes from things like Admob and the rest of the Google-infested web, not to mention priority placement of items in apps like "Places" and Maps searches.
Point 2: "Ohnoes, Baidu is rolling its own 'G-Apps' to replace Maps, Search, Nav, Market, Talk and so on!" Let's see... native Chinese stuff made by Chinese guys for the Chinese - sounds like a perfect idea to me. I'm sure the integration with Baidu and Chinese culture in general will make for a very usable operating system in China... outside of China, however... what's the point?
And if Google continues improving its proprietary apps at the current rate, it's very unlikely that Baidu will be able to keep up. That market will sort itself out... as we've seen with all other devices without G-Apps (tablets, for instance).
Re:not only that (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you actually used Android?
The whole point of a smartphone (and Android) is that you can run all the apps on all the phones (the fragmentation that prevents this in some cases is NOT a positive aspect)... Screw non-standard preloaded apps, that's the exact evil thing we're trying to get away from.
Re:Arguable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a similar reason for wanting to post (before reading a few comments and the article). Baidu and Bing are search engines (and indirectly ad platforms). Android is an operating system. Who cares if Baidu or Bing muscle out Google's search on their own mobile OS platform? How is that going to spell the end of Android or Google as a company?
Article is full of speculation and wild hyperbole. Waste of time to even read. Sad for Harvard Biz review, really.
Android Market (Score:4, Insightful)
Google gets a percentage from every sale in Android Market. Most apps that use AdMob ads also generate revenue for Google. In fact I think there aren't any AdSense ads in the mobile version of Google Search, so Google's loss in case Bing is used as the default search is ZERO.
Re:not only that (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's preference order for the structure of the mobile market, from most preferred to least preferred, is probably something like:
1) Android is a popular, unified platform controlled by Google.
2) Android is a popular but fragmented platform, with carriers and handset makers doing whatever they like.
3) Android is an unpopular platform. Apple dominates the market, and has the power to lock Google out of mobile advertising.
Based on Google's behavior, it's clear their primary goal with Android was simply to avoid #3. Trying to achieve #1 would have required Google to exert control over the platform that carriers and handset makers would have likely objected to, this lowering adoption rates and increasing the probability of #3 occurring. So Google was willing to give up nearly all control, and settle for #2. They'd rather have a fragmented market than one controlled by Apple.
Re:Any benefit ? (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like Linux helped to bring down locked alternatives like Windows and Mac OS. Yeah, that's working out amazingly well as a plan, especially for the desktop. Don't get me wrong. I believe in the right tool for the right job. I use a lot of different OS platforms on a daily basis (Win, Mac, Linux, BSD...) for different purposes, but Linux is *NOT* making inroads on the desktop after 15 years (or more) of being there.
The if-you-build-them-something-open-they-will-come motto just doesn't hold water. The success of Android has been driven by the fact that Apple held onto their exclusive deal with AT&T too long. This is a similar story to what Sony did with the Betamax patents in the 1980s, but with a different set of effects happening now.
What "keep[s] the market clean and filled with options" is innovation, change, new stuff, a better way of doing it, not just an open software development platform.
Tag story FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Which means the best usage wins. If another company can utilise and spread (make appealing) their version of Android better then Google then they will win over Google. End of story.
However, due to the same open source that gave any competitors access to what google has created Google will have access to what advancements competitors make.
Timeframe (Score:3, Insightful)
A good working app market, and goog google services is one thing. But they can still win customers back. The one thing on the side of google is time. Google does have early access to next release of android. Members who do not play the rules correct will only have very late access to the latste version of android. Google will release source eventually, but when the latest google phone is released, google already tested it for several months with the very latest version of android. After that they start to release the software. From that moment "strange"handset makers can port their software to that version. With good quality control they are about 6 months later. after 6 months google has already released or announced the next version.
So handset makers can release bing/baidu apps on android, but only on old android, not the newest/latest. This might be acceptable on "budget" phones, but not on high end phones.
11 Jul 2010 Android 2.2 release on HTC high end phone [gsmdome.com]
No source for 2.2 on official site today 20 nov [android.com]
Re:Arguable (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so much the Market (which kind of sucks, IMO), as Google services themselves, which are integrated into the OS. Remove things like Google Maps, and most location-aware apps will just stop working, access to Market or not. Oh, and of course Google search is integrated with Maps, so ditching Google search for Bing degrades the quality of the phone -- and not only because Bing sucks big hairy camel balls, which it actually does. Who would have thought that a Google phone was in fact a Google phone.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:3, Insightful)
As the AC said above, no. It costs Google nothing if the Chinese telecoms put Baidu and their own app market on. It's not like it costs extra to develop that version they had nothing to do with. And the Chinese people will still have a computer in their pocket that can visit the Web. And where will they go on the web? To sites that carry Google ads. To YouTube and Gmail. And when they get tired of the poor search results with another provider, they'll just google from the browser.
If the vendors get to be too much trouble, phone users can just load a proper version of Android and be done with them.
And in the long run the vendor that provides the full Android experience with Google apps wins anyway.
In summary, the analysis in the fine articles is complete hogwash. It shows a lack of understanding about the situation. It assumes that Google wants to assert some control over the handset and that's not the case. Google doesn't want control, it just wants people to have more access to the Web so people can see their ads and use their services. Android can't be reengineered to shut Google out, so Google will be fine.
This is one of the things I love about Google. They engineer their businesses to profit from technological progress - faster Internet, mobile everywhere, open spectrum. Then they put their other efforts into driving that progress. Because they foresaw the progress they're driving they're best positioned to profit from it when it comes. Because we like progress, it endears us to them. Everybody wins. I like this model better than the domination and ossification model that was previously prevalent.
Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are using the wrong words. I think what you meant to say is:
Google has to exert [regulations] to be able to KEEP android free. Apple exerts effort to keep iOS [regulated].
AND
A FREE market requires strict [regulations] and enforcement in order to stop [corruption].
A "free" market, and a "free" or "open" piece of software are not the same thing. Apple is not monopolizing anything. They are regulating their platform the way they see fit, as Google is doing with their platform. Apple didn't create the mobile phone, smartphone or mobile applications markets. Those markets exist within the broader free market economy and did before the iPhone came to the scene. Apple and Google are merely providing two platform options, one heavily regulated and one less regulated. The market will sort this out as to which one is truly better. We can't say which will be more successful right now because the story is still playing out. However, we can see where the weaknesses and strengths of BOTH platforms are starting to show. Hence my comment of how I like to see these things play out. I think Apple thought this app market thing through a little better and took a more conservative starting point. Google took a more liberal approach and has completely splintered their market and made things harder to regulate going forward. It's far easier to loosen regulation in a controlled sandbox than it is to lasso unruly kids scattered all over the playground.
No misunderstanding here, but a little knowledge can be just as harmful as ignorance.
Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research (Score:2, Insightful)
"Harvard Business Review" needs more research
No kidding. Google is an advertising company. Every company wants the markets complementary to their primary products and services to be commodity markets, because it lowers prices (which increases demand) in those markets, which in turn increases demand for the complementary products and services the company sells. And keeping the margins low and competition high in those markets ensures that you don't get a company like Apple who could potentially leverage a large market share in devices into a competing advertising business.
Google doesn't care (Score:5, Insightful)
The bias of the Harvard Business Review is given away with the question "What's the endgame here?" The domination and ossification model we're used to - "embrace, extend, extinguish" has an endgame: the state where no more effort need be made toward progress because the domination of the market is self-reinforcing. James Plamondon called this "critical mass". This is rent-seeking behaviour, and participating in it is essentially self destructive from a customer point of view because it advances the plan toward the ossified end state. We desperately don't want an "endgame".
Google's game doesn't have an end state. Their game involves continually staying ahead of progress to catch the benefits, and continually driving progress to keep moving the goalposts so others can't achieve dominance because the market is too dynamic. It's better for us in the long run. It requires a great deal of courage and vision to come up with a plan like this, and excellent execution to keep it working. I hope it continues to work.
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
MS sells Windows, and you can run Google applications and web services on it. Google sells Android and you can use MS applications and web services on that. Am I missing the point of this story somewhere?
I honestly can't see it coming as a surprise to Google that their OPEN SOURCE software might be used in ways other than what they dictate. They're au fait with how open source works, I doubt this is an unforeseen problem.
Google know that they control the (official) Android application market, many of the applications use their advertising software/schemes, many of the companies that are manufacturing Android phones will be contributing to its development, and Google gets all important publicity/mindshare. Whatever benefits Google thought they were getting out of starting a free and open mobile OS presumably still stands.
Re:Timeframe (Score:2, Insightful)
There might be vendors. Just find out which vendors actually gave update in the past [wikipedia.org](HTC+samsung mainly?). There is a huge difference of vendors that release a phone that is already outdated when released, and vendors that gave updates form 1.5 till 2.1/2.2
After that, i miss the point of buying a top of the line phone now, and expect updates 2 year later. In 2 years that tech is horribly outdated. Same as you saw on iPhone. running ios4 on a previous generation iPhone disappointed [hardware.info] a lot of people.
If you have 300-700 euros to spend on a phone, you can renew it every 1-2 years. If not you are way over budget (phone can be damaged/stolen way too easy, insurance does not cover everything). iPhone is not different, drop it and the glass breaks.
Old-fashioned world view (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this aspect of the nature of Open Source Software has escaped Google. True, they did provide something that people can use against them, but Google's focus seems to be on growing the market, rather than going to war against a set of opposing corporations.
Without Android, the global touch-screen smartphone market would be a lot smaller than it is now, and much less search traffic would be coming Google's way.
Charles Stross might call this article the thinking of "zero-sum dinosaurs". Just because an action may profit someone else as well as yourself, that's not in itself a reason not to do it.