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."
Arguable (Score:3, Interesting)
The most important asset Google-approved Android devices have is the Android Market. So, how far can a manufacturer go toward replacing Google's applications and services before Google says "No Android Market for you!"? By the way, I believe most Android devices that come out of China don't ship with Android Market so there you go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So how do they get all the devs to migrate from the Android Market?
I doubt this is a viable option when the switch is within a single platform. End users will just sideload the Google apps onto their phone and that'll be the end of it...
Re:Arguable (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now there is a majority of apps that are only available from android market (at least if you limit yourself to legal sources).
Still, there are a couple of independent app stores in operation. But for some idiotic reason the various device brands insists on creating their own stores rather then back one of the independent ones.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with the android market is that it doesn't offer you apps that wont work on your phone, at least if the author sets it up correctly.
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 r
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Who cares.
90% of android phones aren't upgradeable anyways. in 2 years I have received 2 major OS upgrades to my iphone. in 2 years time there isn't a single Android vendor still suppling updates to older phones. Once you root your phone the warranty is voided.
I really want to get away from the iphone. I just can't seem to find a replacement that the vendors care about for more than 6 months.
Re:Timeframe (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the vendors care about the initial sale and, where applicable, the contract they lock you into.
If you want a vendor who cares about the phone for more than 6 months, the only vendor pursuing a strategy compatible with that right now is apple, because they want that initial sale, but they also want future sales, and app sales, and iad revenue. They have a vested interest in making sure your phone gets that upgrade, because it helps them make more money. Samsung, htc, AT&T, verizon? Mostly they want the initial sale, and then quick obsolescence to keep their revenues up; they're not interested in spending a bunch of money rolling out upgrades so you can spend money on someone else's apps in another store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung, htc, AT&T, verizon? Mostly they want the initial sale, and then quick obsolescence to keep their revenues up
You may want to rethink that list a little. There are three vendors involved in your ongoing smartphone experience: the equipment maker, the OS vendor and the carrier.
In your list, AT&T and Verizon are carriers. They have an ongoing service relationship with their customers, and they actually LOSE money each time you buy a new phone (at least in the US due to phone subsidies), so they have every incentive to keep you happy with your current phone on your current contract. Similarly, the OS maker (Google
Re: (Score:2)
No, they do not. Because each time you buy a new phone, they lock you into a 2-year contract whose total sticker price far exceeds the cost of the phone, and you pay something probably closely approximating wholesale prices for the phone in the volumes the carriers can purchase them in.
They have *every* interest in seeing your phone be "just good enough" that you don't leave their service, and "just bad enough" that you want to buy an upgrade phone, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both the Aria and Eris from HTC would disagree with you. finding a phone with froyo installed by default is difficult as the makers have stopped putting version numbers in their specs. Sure there are several models available but far more are shipping with 2.1 right now than with 2.2 That is something not even apple does. When they release a new OS all devices sold after that get the update automatically. Their might be some in supply for a couple of months, but all new ones made are upgraded.
Apple war
Re: (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 hav
Re: (Score:2)
But the advantage to this, is that Android phones are moving at a much faster pace than the Iphone, with newer gadgets coming out with a new model every 3 months, instead of once a year.
Not really. There are more Android phone models per year than iOS phone models per year, but in terms of rate of technological progress, iPhone tends to outpace the industry. Comparing top iPhones one year apart and top Android phones one year apart, the iPhone makes more progress.
Also, Android phones tend to just be catching up or surpassing iPhones just as the new iPhone comes out, leaping ahead of Android by another year. Retina display and gyroscope are examples that come to mind.
The main thing that And
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. There are more Android phone models per year than iOS phone models per year, but in terms of rate of technological progress, iPhone tends to outpace the industry. Comparing top iPhones one year apart and top Android phones one year apart, the iPhone makes more progress.
You don't have anywhere near enough data points to make such a bold claim. And half the data points contradict it.
Take the first Android phone ever: the G1. Nowhere near the same league as the iPhone 3G that was availlable at the time. A year later, there's the Motorola Milestone, which is already superior to the iPhone 3GS availlable at that time. Yes, the iPhone 4 puts the iPhone at the head of the game again, and it really needed to, because it was seriously falling behind. I don't think it'll be long be
Re: (Score:2)
Early on doesn't really mean much, I'm talking about now that both markets are relatively mature. The G1 was really more of a publicly available prototype than it was an actual polished product.
Now, however, HTC, Motorola, etc., have all put their best efforts forth. There's no reason to believe that Apple cannot continue to beat the current crop of Android handsets each release cycle. What remains to be seen is if they can launch so far ahead of the competition that they can wait a year between releases wi
Re: (Score:2)
It was only a few months before iPhone 4 that Android phones were even catching up with the 3GS.
The iPhone 3GS was released in June 2009, the Motorola Droid/Milestone was released in November 2009. That's less than half a year before Android overtook the iPhone, and after the Droid/Milestone, so many other Android devices followed, that suddenly the iPhone was lagging behind for half a year.
It's been almost half a year, and there still aren't any truly competitive Android handsets in terms of overall hardware.
True, but the iPhone also lagged behind for half a year. Give it time. And the iPhone 4 was a pretty big jump. Much bigger than from 3G to 3GS. Android goes in much smaller increments.
The real big issue here is scr
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: (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, I believe most Android devices that come out of China don't ship with Android Market so there you go.
All 4 Android tablets I've bought in Shanghai came with the Android Market preloaded. On the contrary, the rule seems to be access to the Market.
"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.
Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research (Score:4, Interesting)
And Google can cut off access to any manufacturer at any time if they get too in-bed with Baidu or Microsoft.
Yeah, but wouldn't that then make Android/Google just as "evil" as Apple? I just find it interesting that people are suggesting that Google could do something with their "open" Android platform that Apple can do today with their "closed" iOS platform. It's just one of those shoe-on-the-other-foot moments that I like to see play out when folks don't think things all the way through.
Re: (Score:2)
O.o And are you implying that restricting Google services to companies who violate Google terms is equivalent to restricting ALL access to the phone unless you suckle Apple?
Last I checked if you didn't like the way Google ran their market, you can create 30+ markets of your own, or manually install, or whatever without any effort.
If you don't like how Apple runs their market, you have to hack the OS
Re: (Score:2)
It would. But Google obviously doesn't do that, as there are Bing and Baidu apps in the Market. What they do, however, is demand that the phone has some core functionality in order to give it access to the market. And so, developers can expect that apps that depend on this will work -- and vice versa: if you remove core functionality from the phone, you can expect that plenty of apps will just stop working. And it just so happens that much of the core functionality is linked to Google's services. It's a Goo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I run into the same fucking terrible misunderstanding while talking about the free market. A market with no restrictions or controls does NOT result in a free market. It results in a few groups dominating and controlling it to the misfortune of all of the others. A FREE market requires strict controls and enforcement in order to stop stagnation and monopoly.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've still no idea why people could possibly think a market with 0 regulation would be valuable to consumers. It is insanely conducive to monopolies. And with shrunk government and freer markets... The power of evil rich corporations is horrible.
:( My assumption that people got the term wrong rather than were completely retarded was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is the Market is not forced on anyone, not th emanufacturer, OR the end user.
With an AOSP ROM, anyone can download a .APK and install it on their phone.
Any lock-downs preventing this are due to the carrier, not Google. And frankly it is the norm outside the US to not prevent this. Only US carriers enable the option to prevent installing non-signed APKs and then remove it from the UI.
Re: (Score:2)
And open themselves up for massive bad press, lawsuits, and a possible anti-trust investigation. They would probably win, but at one hell of a cost.
All of China? (Score:2)
So let's say Baidu makes a market with localized apps and pays providers to point to only that?
Or let's say China Mobile sets the phone with their own default market. Even Verizon can do that.
Many ways competitors could become much bigger than the "official" market pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
You still need to convince enough developers that it's in their best interest to run to your (fragmented) market, while everyone else is going with the official one.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure on the Verizon statement, last I heard Verizon were putting Google on their "Droid" handsets and putting Bing on their low-end android handsets (the ones not labeled "Droid")
Re: (Score:2)
A common misconception is that people think that the Android market from Google is essential and irreplacable. However, I find that there are plenty of ways to replace Android market with something that may work.
The Android market may be fine and essential for people who live in U.S, or at least, many English-speaking regions. However, my experience is that they are a somewhat half-baked solution to non-English speakers. Don't speak English? all you have is a bunch of apps written in some indecipherable
Say what? (Score:2)
Why the hell would Baidu or Bing be profiting from Android if Google weren't? Just because Google's main business is a search engine? Have these people ever actually used Android? Maybe if they had, they'd know it isn't just a mobile platform for Search... o.O
Oh well, I'm going to read the article now... checking back in 5 minutes to confirm whether my prediction (article=utter crap) was right...
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: (Score:2)
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?
I think the point is that the Chinese market is the world's largest untapped smartphone market. But you're right, there are a ton of other fish in the sea. Even if Baidu achieves complete dominance, taking all those 1.3 billion potential customers off the table, that still leaves more than 5 billion potential customers in the rest of the world who don't speak Chinese and will use Google because Baidu gives them nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The market won't sort its self out if companies put too high a price to switch and close down the phone. If a user has to format the phone or root it then the free market won't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Isn't this a very similar situation to the one with the browsers on Windows in the EU, only worse (since on Windows, installing alternative browsers isn't blocked)?
I'm surprised nobody in the US has picked that up as a reason to sue... what with litigation being the primary form of communication between corporate entities these days and all.
Personally, I just won't buy that crap and won't let my friends or family buy it either. Learned about locked down devices the hard way (Milestone), and won
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The Battle for Search Revenue (Score:2)
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? ...Sad for Harvard Biz review, really.
Relax. No one is spelling the end of Android or Google. But Google did not create Android as a gift to the OSS community. They created it to be able to drive search revenue their way, instead of having to rely on Apple. If the product they invested in cannot actually drive revenue, it causes their investment to have been in vain.
Harvard Business Review understands what the average geek does not: that large corporations implement strategies to create profits, and some fail. The only thing that's sad here is
Any benefit ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Tell that to my dad, my sister, and my wife.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Tell that to my dad, my sister, and my wife."
Well then, that settles it! 2010 is finally the year of Linux on the desktop!
Re: (Score:2)
LMAO, I think you can forward my comment to them just fine. If you are speaking of those three using Linux on the desktop, then hurray! They have joined the less than 1% of the world that uses Linux on the desktop (along with me and probably 25% or more of the folks reading this, you insensitive clod!). Now, may I ask what they do for a living that they use Linux on the desktop? If your answer is anything dealing with science or academia then, yeah, that makes sense. One of the only places you see Linu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the point about linux. It helps. It doesn't need to have a huge market share to make the marketplace more open. MS knows that if they lock things down like apple. It will become year of the linux desktop. If they don't keep innovating/progressing it'll become year of the linux desktop. And competing
Re: (Score:2)
Right, I'll just get work to dump those VBA macro'ed excel sheets, all of my vendor selection tools, and all of the "cheaply" priced cad systems.
That will work great, I'd love to use linux at work, but i'd need a windows VM anyways...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can get the iPhone on all 5 major phone networks in the UK, and you can buy an unlocked version direct from Apple. That hasn't stopped Android moving into the market.
Linux failed on the desktop because by the time it was a viable alternative, it was too late. Windows Phone 7 will fail for the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
However comparing Linux/Windows on the desktop iOS/Android on smartphones is asinine. Windows was never locked down or exclusionary even remotely to the degree that iOS is. It was an open, free market for virtually everyone.
Really? You can buy a computer from [vendor name here] but it only comes with Windows.
Really? You don't remember Windows before NT 3.5 do you?
Really? Signed drivers?
Really?!?! Genuine Advantage?
Yeah, just WIDE OPEN!
As for outside the U.S., I have no data, so my comments strictly cover the U.S. market and our economy. Fair enough?
Depends on the definition of benefit. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Competition within the platform? interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not like they would lose control over Android itself, since they are the primary developers. But I agree that its possible for them to lose control over the cashflow that Android generates, which is quite a different thing.
But this raises an interesting question. Google was surely aware of such a risk when they decided to open source such a high valued piece of software. They had to decide between giving away freedom and having an easier way for "android everywhere" (so they can flood the market with android), or have total control over the platform and do it in a more WP7-way. So why did they go with the first approach? How will they keep earning money off it if its open?
IMHO the answer is that it doesn't matter (to some extent) if the operating system is free or not. One of the things that make android so attractive (in terms of features) is google's services: Contact sync, app sync, android market, google voice, voice search, voice actions, google navigation, GMail and more cloud services which are to come.
Someone can "take" google's efforts - that means take the Android Open Source Project - and turn it into a phone with bing. Or yahoo maps, etc.. But they would need to compete with google in all fronts, with all its cloud services, etc.. Plus there are lots of apps which already work with google-propietary services like Google Appengine, Google Maps, etc... they are gaining lots of new users which are going mobile and using those services more and more. And its becoming more difficult for competitors to make a competing product because they can not only take Android and put bing search on it, they have to compete with Google in ALL fronts to make it really competent.
(of course thats my own opinion and view in all this, and all in all I like that android itself can bring competition within its own platform in the cloud level, which makes everything much more exciting for me as a user/consumer. I don't know if google really wanted to give away android for "the benefit of us all" but they could end up competing on their own platform as a result of it, and I think thats good)
PD: another interesting matter is what would happen if someone would make an android version that runs apps that aren't compatible with other android versions because they don't fulfill the OHA criteria and/or tests. In that instance I'd say that isn't Android anymore and could not be regarded as such, even if it was a fork of it
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
PD: another interesting matter is what would happen if someone would make an android version that runs apps that aren't compatible with other android versions because they don't fulfill the OHA criteria and/or tests. In that instance I'd say that isn't Android anymore and could not be regarded as such, even if it was a fork of it.
In which case maybe Google would sue that someone for dilution of trademark or other issues.
PS: What does "PD" mean?
Re: (Score:2)
PS: What does "PD" mean?
I just interpreted it as silly+happy emoticon for someone who has two mouths, and their eyes below their mouths.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Postdata. I keep forgetting that its "PS" when writing english. Another slashdotter already explained below :)
Re: (Score:2)
Postdata. I keep forgetting that its "PS" when writing english. Another slashdotter already explained below :)
I wasn't trying to be pedantic, and I gathered from context that it was probably equivalent to "post-script". I was just curious to know if it was a typo or a legitimate expression. Well, I learned something today.
Re: (Score:2)
But I agree that its possible for them to lose control over the cashflow that Android generates, which is quite a different thing.
That's the thing about the business press - they think of the cash flow as the goal of any company's product, not the product itself. As geeks, we're more interested in the "Wow, 16Gb RAM the size of a potato chip!" But for business folks, that doesn't matter unless it is possible to make big bucks making and selling them.
Re: (Score:2)
In point of fact, positive cash flow *is* the goal of any for-profit company's product. A company that goes into business without paying attention to their expenses vs. their income will not remain in business.
Re: (Score:2)
A very one-dimensional view of the world...
The societal goal of a good product is that it's a good product that's useful to many people. An incentive for someone to make a good product is cash flow. There could be other incentives.
Like Google's incentive in this case may be simply to keep the market open, so that their cash-flow in other areas isn't even more easy for others to block off. They probably don't need the headache of controlling their own platform like MS or Apple; just enough competition to ens
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on your decision. There's a Blackberry with your name on it somewhere. Enjoy it!
Interesting ... but $100m is peanuts for Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And it hasn't even been proven, its "a source"
Morons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This just proves how little the Business community understands technology. Google could lose control of Android to Bing and Baidu if either of them were to come out with a superior product than Google.
Of course... that's how Microsoft makes all of their money--from superior products. That's why so many people haven't bothered to upgrade to XP--because Vista was too good for them.
Has anyone ever seen a google ad?
Well, other than astroturfing on slashdot... Google has ads everywhere. They've branded the bejesus out of everything they've ever touched. (Not that I blame them--it's good marketing sense--but I'm simply flabbergasted that someone using a computer claims they haven't seen a google ad.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone that has any sense with regards to the internet knows that Google is orders of magnitude superior to Bing.
Why?
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: (Score:2)
Why is this modded insightful? It's incorrect.
Google gets a one-time $15 developer registration fee, plus the usage data of who's downloading what. Roughly, 30% of the app's cost goes to the CELL COMPANY that the app was purchased from. 70% goes to the app developer.
You're thinking of a different, more locked down company that keeps 30% for itself.
You're a bit mixed up here. Google does share revenue with cell companies, but not with all, and how much they share depends on the deal they have with them. They do get money from sales in the Android Market.
Google Wins Searching (Score:5, Interesting)
The main reason for Google to produce and promote Android is so the mobile/embedded Internet isn't locked up, either by a monopoly (Apple/Nokia/Microsoft/telco) or by a technology (iOS, Symbian, Win7+). With a large minority, or even a majority, of non-desktops off Windows, Google is more likely to have more access to more content to index, and more searching to insert ads into. That is Google's core business, the only one that makes money, and it makes money by the bargeload. Google is the only truly cross platform Internet business other than eBay or any other site that isn't original content. Android makes the Internet more cross platform, so Google has more natural advantage in it. Even if Google doesn't control Android. In this way Google's strategy is just like Sun's Java strategy. And Google is sticking to it much more closely, unlike Sun which never became an "Internet company", but rather a company that the Internet benefited. Consider whether Sun (even as an Oracle division) would still have a future without Java, and whether Java would have as substantial a future without Android. Android free of Google (even more than Java is now free of Sun) would still benefit Google more than does Java free of Sun benefit Google, even as Java keeps Sun alive.
Risk? No, opportunity! (Score:2)
I've never understood exactly why Google shoveled so much money into Android, and from what I hear from Android developers, they're not sure either.
Google sells ads; they're very good at it, and they have excellent margins. It's hard for them to find another business where they can make money as efficiently, so maybe they shouldn't bother. When they started developing Android, perhaps Google was worried that there wouldn't be good smartphone platforms that they could use to sell ads on, but that's n
Google competes on apps, not lock-in (Score:2)
Yeah... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Androids Future... (Score:2)
Well as I sit here and stare into my crystal ball here is what I see.
Andriod will be a player, but it won't be a Win-7 mobile killer or an iOS killer.
The source of its biggest problem will be its biggest advantage and that is it is wide open.
The user experience on the iPhone / iPad / i[whatever] that iOS delivers has set only set the bar, it has set the bar insanely high becuase like Apple or think that they are evil, the iOS UI is as close to perfect as you can get right now and the apps reflect that.
Win7
The key is in the Android Market (Score:2)
Am i glad i don't live in the USA (Score:2)
and i never bee tempted to use Verizon - ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There is no fragmentation (Score:2)
Have you actually used Android?
Its progress, if you are using something outdated you can't run new stuff.
This has always been the case, except here you don't have a company trying to procrastinate as long as possible between releasing something new in order to make more money, you have a company who is constantly inventing.
And guess what - most nerds don't care one bit. They buy a phone to use, not just to have while they sit and hit F5 in the browser hoping to read about an update.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a source for that? Do you mean no Google apps at all? No Maps, Street View and so on?
Or are you just talking about stuff (bloatware) that carriers like to preload...? That would be a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't actually find the original source, but a while ago Google stated that future versions of android would run separate from versions of the google apps, separating them so that users don't need the latest OS to run the latest gapps.
This has already started happening, with the core apps later versions appearing in the market - http://android-apps.com/articles/reviews/google-puts-gmail-app-in-the-android-market-new-version-available-for-download/ [android-apps.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's definitely started happening, but it's never been stated that the core apps would not be shipping with handsets. That would be an entirely different scenario... and an unlikely one at best.
They're already on the right track with Maps/GMail and other market-updatable core apps... other than the fact that the updated APKs are then placed in /data/app/ instead of /system/app/, this is most definitely the way to go. And on modern phones (2GB+ of space for user apps is becoming the norm) this isn't a
Re: (Score:2)
He is saying that he still expects Gmail, the Android Market, and the other Google Apps will continue to ship on the phones by default. I agree. All the market availability does is enable app updates more frequently than OS upgrades.
I will also dispute the Google apps being the core apps. The core apps are those like Contacts and Home, which would be present in an Android build you compiled from source.
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:not only that (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not convinced that #1 is even a strong interest of Google's. When Google bought Android they could, after all, have kept it and made it available to handset makers under attractive terms. Instead, they set up the Open Handset Alliance -- which they don't control -- and transferred ownership of Android to the OHA. I think that, for Google, as with Chrome in the browser market, the two main purposes of Android in the smartphone OS market are:
1. Prevent any one non-Google vendor from dominating the market and using that to dictate which services can be accessed, either directly or simply by favoring their own services or their partners,
2. Drive expectations in the market so that future offerings, from whatever vendor, provide an excellent platform for the online services at the core of Google's business.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I think you're totally right. All the people saying "Google is trying to control our phones! Google is trying to control our phones!" are ignoring how inconsistent Google's actions are with actually trying for #1, and how much more their actions point toward #2. Of course they want #1, they're a for-profit company; that doesn't mean they think #1 is viable.
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.
It's not about search, DAMMIT! (Score:4, Interesting)
FOR FUCK'S SAKE, GOOGLE IS REALLY NO LONGER ABOUT SEARCH!
Look, Google is an advertising company. Way back when, they got their start as a search engine, but that's a small part of the pie now.
Android further fragments the mobile OS market, which drives consumers to use shitty web "apps" rather than native applications. These web "apps" are the sort of think Google can shit advertisements into, or otherwise collect the personal data you so willingly give them.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my goodness! Buttons! How will we ever manage!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but people still buy (differently branded) TVs, and have done so for the last fifty years. Remember all the jokes about VCR clocks? People still bought VCRs, because it fit their requirements.
And as far as cars go, ever try to get into a car with a different placement of steering column controls than what you're used to? I still turn on the windshield wiper instead of the turn indicator in my dad's car, because the controls are on opp
Re: (Score:2)
Carriers only have any leverage because of your horrendous US mobile environment, where you buy both instrument and service from the same company. Come on down to India sometime, and I'll show you just how much control the carriers have, even though we still can't migrate numbers across carriers.
Yes, phones cost more, but the end result is cheaper call rates, and pretty much no lock-in.