The Future of Android — Does It Belong To Bing and Baidu?

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."

Comments

If you love it, set it free

[Anonymous Coward]

If it loves you too, it will come back.

Re:If you love it, set it free

[countertrolling]

And if it doesn't, hunt it down and kill it!

Re:If you love it, set it free

[gtall]

You haven't been in very many relationships, have you. Presuming you are male, there are more female personalities than grains of sand on the world's beaches (many women have more than one, which ones did you actually see?). When they come back, you have no idea precisely why. Once you answer that, you might find it is for love...or not.

not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

big name android app developers are ditching the android app stores and talking to carriers about making their apps pre-delivered, exclusive content. No dealing with piracy, no dealing with an ad-based model, no dealing with hundreds of hardware models and dozens of software versions.

I was molested by the TSA

Re:not only that

[BeeRockxs]

Pre-delivered apps can be pirated just the same.

Re:not only that

[bemymonkey]

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:not only that

[houstonbofh]

Not if the are payed for by the carrier and free to everyone on that carrier. Hard to steal it when it is already there, and harder to steal it when it won't run on your branch of the Android tree.

Re:not only that

[Threni]

It's what Google is getting away from too, with its plan for a slimmed-down future release of Android having all the apps as downloadable (by the end user) apps, to free up memory, allow users to choose what to install and provide fewer excuses for the likes of Orange to delay OTA updates.

Re:not only that

[znu]

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

[bemymonkey]

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:not only that

[DragonWriter]

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

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:not only that

[fishexe]

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.

Re:not only that

[neokushan]

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/

Re:not only that

[bemymonkey]

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 problem at all... :)

Re:not only that

[Threni]

Gmail, maps etc ARE the core apps. What were you thinking about?

Re:not only that

[Tacvek]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Have you used Android? That's exactly what carriers, handset makers, and app developers are doing.

Arguable

[ThoughtMonster]

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:Arguable

[houstonbofh]

Far enough to make a private market of applications that actually all work on their phone?

Re:Arguable

[MrHanky]

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:Arguable

[bemymonkey]

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

[TheRaven64]

The Android Market doesn't require an exclusive agreement, so they don't need to make developers switch, they just need to make them use both app stores. And, unlike the iPhone, app stores are not the only places to get apps, you can grab them from anywhere.

Re:Arguable

[neokushan]

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.

Re:Arguable

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Arguable

[hitmark]

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.

Check the market

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot understand half of the top application right now half is chinese.

Makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

What difference does Android make? If people choose Bing and Baidu over Google, the company is screwed anyway. Google's search engine has to be the best, or at least as good as the competition, for Google to survive. I don't see how Google could lose on Android and not lose on the desktop/laptop.

Re:Makes no sense

[symbolset]

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:Makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree with most points, but it can be engineered to shut Google out. Add a few lines in the HOSTS file *.google..com or such and boom, no google.

Re:Makes no sense

[symbolset]

You might have been right if there was some market that wasn't aware there is a Google. I doubt such a market exists. Faced with a device that can't find this known useful resource, the natural response would be to fix it. That's a reasonable reaction because the device itself without access to google is in fact broken. This objection just goes more to the part of my post that reads: "If the vendors get to be too much trouble, phone users can just load a proper version of Android and be done with them. "

"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[brunes69]

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

[multimediavt]

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:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[houstonbofh]

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.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a key difference. Google could cut off access to other companies but they probably wouldn't do that to end-users. I think the issue people have with Apple isn't their ability to cut off other companies, but the restrictions placed on end-users of their products.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[theaceoffire]

There are certain terms and service companies have to agree to, if they wish to use Android Market.

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.

(This, by the way, is part of the reason why Google's phone is "open" and Apple's phone is "I dont wanna you can't make me Oh wait, can I make profit all right then but only for now")

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[MrHanky]

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 Google OS, after all.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Idiomatick]

Ugh Google has to exert control to be able to KEEP android free. Apple exerts effort to keep iOS monopolized.

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

[rotide]

No, because if you want into the main market with Android, you play by Google's rules. But _nothing_ stops you from making your own market. There are already a ton of apps located outside the official marketplace that you can go and get. This is the huge advantage with Android. With the iWhatever, you are utterly locked into Steve Jobs Market, that's it. End of Story. As an Android user, I welcome new markets. Sprout them up!

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[brunes69]

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:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[multimediavt]

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

[Anthony Mouse]

"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.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the problem is that people like you have to make everything into some sort of false dichotomy, then work out reasons why your opinion is somehow a logical fact. That, and the lack of hygiene, is why no one likes nerds.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[The End Of Days]

No, a fair market is what you're defining. Redefining free to mean "you're free to do as I tell you" is a popular way of trying to package up control (see Richard Stallman et al). Free, however, does not guarantee everyone can do whatever they want and never has.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Totenglocke]

Yeah, but wouldn't that then make Android/Google just as "evil" as Apple?

No because Apple cuts people off to keep them from giving you access to something Steve Jobs doesn't like; Google would be cutting carriers off because they were preventing you from having access to more things.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Totenglocke]

A FREE market requires strict controls and enforcement in order to stop stagnation and monopoly.

Wow. A free market requires SOME controls to prevent monopolies (in the cases where a monopoly isn't the best option, and to regulate the monopoly when it is the best option, such as for water / power lines). STRICT controls are the exact opposite of a free market.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Google *sells* the Gmail app and the Android Market app to cell phone manufacturers. It is not evil at all for them to not provide access to the Android Market if their customers stop paying for it. And if having the default search engine on the phone is important, then Google can give a discount to the call phone manufacturers for that.

Keep in mind that the Google brand is very powerful. People buy phones because they have Google applications.

What I see as a possible problem is if Facebook makes their own version of the Android Market, and their own e-mail app. They could combine it with social networking and tie it in with their new e-mail platform. A facebook Android Market would succeed because it is too big of a market for Android Developers to not publish their apps. Also, Facebook has a better platform for recommending apps based on who you are and what your interests are and what your friends are using. This would make developers happy because it would allow us to more effectively market our apps. Also, if I were Facebook, I would make my own advertising platform for Android. Then, when running Android apps, you could get adds targeted very specifically to the user who is running the Android applications resulting in higher conversions (and hence more profits for the developer.)

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Anonymous Coward]

So strict controls on Android is ok, and no on iOS.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Anonymous Coward]

On the same note, strict controls and enforcement can lead to stagnation and monopoly.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[jonwil]

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:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Idiomatick]

Ah, you are totally right. So much for my upset. I thought people were wrongfully referring to Laissez-faire markets when they said free market ... apparently they were right.

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 far more comforting.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[Idiomatick]

Strict doesn't necessarily mean obtrusive. You could have a strict law banning raping small children. That would't impinge on your sex life though.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[ihavnoid]

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 language, or some wierd application with machine-translated, cryptic text.

For example, in Korea, there are zero games avaiable on the Android market, and zero paid apps published by the Koreans. Until recently, paid apps weren't even available to the Korean market. Although half of it isn't Google's fault (e.g., in Korea, games are required to have a rating to be sold.), but that doesn't matter. On the other hand, the T-store from SK Telecom (the largest telco in Korea) does have a functioning Android app store which actually provides localized games, localized contents, and applications that are written by real Korean-speaking developers. Since the Korean developers cannot register paid apps in the Android market, they upload the free version on both the T-store and the Android market, and leave a note on the Android market version as something like 'if you want the paid version, search on T-store'.

Now, this is the situation in Korea. Imagine what can happen in China, which may require even more localized content, a potentially huge installment base, and many people who doesn't speak English. If Google fails to provide a localized market, and Baidu does, suddenly Android without Google starts to make sense.

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[IrquiM]

So, you are using the same argument as the Chinese are doing when people are complaining about human rights and stuff? It's a free world, because most of the Europeans countries are free. They just use their rights to regulate their people?

Re:"Harvard Business Review" needs more research

[JAlexoi]

I bet that if Google would give back to the manufacturers some of the money that their handsets produce in app purchases, the handsets would be kept up-to-date longer...

Say what?

[bemymonkey]

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...

Re:Say what?

[multimediavt]

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:Say what?

[TheRaven64]

Not to mention the fact that Bing is owned by Microsoft, a company that ships its own OS for mobile phones and regards Android as a competitor. What on earth would they gain from having their own Android fork? Other than the fact that they'd be distributing Linux under the GPL and therefore giving up the right to sue anyone for patent infringement on anything in the kernel, of course...

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it's speculation; but the article doesn't say this would be the end of Google at all.

The worst-case scenario is that if Google fails to see searches directed their way from their own OS, if if their market is supplanted by others, they could stop supporting it.

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Andriod has to pay for itself. If Google loses control of search on its own platform, they have that much less incentive to keep developing it. Duh.

Money makes the world go round even at Google.

Re:Say what?

[Patch86]

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.

Any benefit ?

[cokegen]

Even if Google don't see a dime out of Android, it helps to bring down locked alternatives such as the SO on the IPhone and Windows Mobile. That helps to keep the market clean and filled with options.

Re:Any benefit ?

[multimediavt]

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.

Re:Any benefit ?

[fishexe]

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:Any benefit ?

[Kenshin]

"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:Any benefit ?

[Idiomatick]

Windows is FAR FAR FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR more open than the vast majority of mobile phone offerings. Hell winmo is one of the most open platforms and cellphone companies are locking them down a scary degree.

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 with something free, incumbent, with thousands of coders, lots of business deals and huge flexibility. Is not something anyone wants to take a real stab at.

Re:Any benefit ?

[ergo98]

The success of Android has been driven by the fact that Apple held onto their exclusive deal with AT&T too long.

Oh bulllllshit.

Android has seem similar gains around the world, where the whole weak AT&T excuse (you know, a carrier that covers virtually 100% of the US population) has no relevance. In Canada the iPhone had a brief period where it shone, but now the Android devices are coming on very strong.

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.

Re:Any benefit ?

[multimediavt]

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 Linux on the desktop is in science and engineering disciplines...right next to Windows and Mac OS.

You can draw parallels to current Linux market share with Mac OS market share in the 1990s, but the problem is the Linux market share was never above where it is now, while Mac OS was above where it was in the 1990s prior to 1993 and is now much larger. Look at a similar 15 year period in Linux history and you will see negligible or no positive increase in market share. Why? User experience, availability of cross-platform applications and general serviceability of the operating environment. Ubuntu has made significant advances for Linux desktop user experience, and OpenOffice.org has allowed for the most basic of computing tasks (general productivity) to come up close to par with existing "for pay/closed" operating systems, but it's still not that serviceable. You still have to have a good deal of wirehead knowledge to make things work right-out-of-the-box, all the time, every time with Linux. The support community for Linux is STILL, to this day, filled with a lot of arrogant unhelpful people, forums that make huge assumptions about their readers, and so called proponents that are no better than the Mac and Windows fanbois they profess to hate on the other side of the fence.

I could go on, but no one is paying me for this! Plus, weren't we talking about Android and Google?!?! Gaaa!

Re:Any benefit ?

[e70838]

Idem for my wife. I have used Linux as a second OS since 1992. Since 6 months, Windows is the second OS (used mainly for MSN chat) and Linux is the first one (mail, internet, office).
The main motivation of the switch was that my not so old printer and scanner had no driver on Vista. The second motivation is that I do not like license scheme and price of windows. I can not install my official windows XP pro in virtual box. On my notebook, I have windows seven starter which is crap. I do not like any of the change between XP and Vista.
Windows is probably better for watching video or playing games, but Linux is now good enough on these points.
good by microsoft

Re:Any benefit ?

[multimediavt]

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?

Re:Any benefit ?

[jonbryce]

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:Any benefit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The if-you-build-them-something-open-they-will-come motto just doesn't hold water.

It kinda holds in iPhone case though. Apple's success was because they built a store which was much more "open" to developers than what was there before.

Re:Any benefit ?

[Anthony Mouse]

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.

You're forgetting what keeps Linux off the desktop: Third party apps that run on Windows but not Linux and training costs for learning a new environment. Do you expect those to be a problem for Android? There is no quarter century history of third party Win32 applications or 90% installed base of Microsoft software that people already know how to use. Everything is new. It's a level playing field instead of one in which incumbents use a huge installed base plus lock-in to keep out new competitors.

Now, that doesn't mean Android is going to win. But it means the comparison to Linux On The Desktop is inapt.

Re:Any benefit ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm honestly confused by your objections. Most of those have nothing to do with whether Windows is "locked down or exclusionary". I'm not saying they aren't bad things, I'm arguing they are completely irrelevant when we're tallking about whether it's "locked down or exclusionary even remotely to the degree that iOS is". That said, I don't quite get what you're driving at with Windows versions before NT 3.5.

Signed drivers is the only thing that's obviously locked down and exclusionary, but anybody can self-sign a driver for free, so it really doesn't seem even close to the iOS stuff.

Re:Any benefit ?

[Totenglocke]

Dead on. I've had a Linux-only laptop for years, but it'll never go on my desktop because of my game collection.

Re:Any benefit ?

[cynyr]

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:Any benefit ?

[Idiomatick]

Since when is windows == MSOffice? Anyways, try to move anything from a symbian to an iphone and you'll see my point.

Re:Any benefit ?

[tehcyder]

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.

But the fact that every single one of your sexual partners uses Linux could just be a coincidence.

Re:Any benefit ?

[fishexe]

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.

But the fact that every single one of your sexual partners uses Linux could just be a coincidence.

Not a fact. My asian hooker uses pirated Windows.

Profits

[Anonymous Coward]

Google win because Microsoft only make profit from Windows and Office. If Android cuts into these profits enough it will restrict the amount of cash flow Microsoft have to throw away on search engines, Zunes, consoles etc.

Re:Profits

[Anonymous Coward]

You're arguing that Google is engaged in leveraging their search advertising monopoly profits in order to destroy competitor products through dumping?

Good thing for Google's sake that Android isn't an office suite so it's unlikely to actually cut into Office products.

Depends on the definition of benefit.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If you define benefit as the evil kind of benefit by which you abuse the control you have over a platform to lock the competition out and the customers in, create walled gardens, etc then Google won't benefit under this scenario. On the other hand if yu define benefit as denying your competition the evil kind of benefit, then Google will benefit immensely even if Bing and Baidu and Facebook choose android as their preferred platform.

It's not about search, DAMMIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Competition within the platform? interesting

[Superken7]

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:Competition within the platform? interesting

[ScrewMaster]

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:Competition within the platform? interesting

[dkleinsc]

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:Competition within the platform? interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

PS: What does "PD" mean?

Maybe it was a typo of P.S. or PS?
Sometimes I can't tell my ess from a dole in the ground...

Re:Competition within the platform? interesting

[Arthur Grumbine]

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:Competition within the platform? interesting

[jplopez]

> PS: What does "PD" mean?

"PD" means Postdata, from Latin "post datum" or "after date", and was a way to add some more information after a written letter, since you could not modify a message written with ink or typewriter. In electronic communications like email this is not necessary, so it's recommended to add a "PS", or "Postscript", "after the written".

PS: how convenient you asking what PD means in your PS... oh, wait!

Re:Competition within the platform? interesting

[Superken7]

Postdata. I keep forgetting that its "PS" when writing english. Another slashdotter already explained below :)

Re:Competition within the platform? interesting

[Americano]

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:Competition within the platform? interesting

[ScrewMaster]

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:Competition within the platform? interesting

[jernejk]

I, for one, would not a use a phone / OS BECAUSE it syncs with Google. So Googless Android is the only kind of Android that appeals to me.

Re:Competition within the platform? interesting

[oiron]

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 ensure that they get in on emerging markets, without the traditional OS players dominating there and dictating terms to Google (like: "Pay us a few million or your ad-revenues from our platforms are history").

From what I can see, they seem to have given up on China as a too-opaque market to get much penetration into, and are concentrating on other possibilities - India, S.E. Asia and Africa are big enough to balance out (and then some!) the loss of China, for example.

Remember, they don't need to be the biggest or the only player in the market - that would probably be bad for them in a lot of ways. They just need to be big enough to survive, and to keep their employees, shareholders and customers happy.

And that's the problem with most business-thinking - the idea that you can only be a success at the expense of others' failure, and that you have to actively work against everyone else. The Harvard Business Review article seems to fall into this fallacy.

Re:Competition within the platform? interesting

[oiron]

Congratulations on your decision. There's a Blackberry with your name on it somewhere. Enjoy it!

Re:Competition within the platform? interesting

[tehcyder]

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.

You're missing the point: if you don't have positive cash flow you will go bust, at which point any other reasons for being in business cease to matter.

Followup...

[bemymonkey]

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:Followup...

[fishexe]

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:Followup...

[Idiomatick]

Apparently verizon modified the phone so users viewing the market cannot see google. (Uncomfirmed afaik since i don't have a verizon-android phone) And that if you DO install the google launcher it redirects to bing anyways. Which you see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WGgyI_1AU4

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:Followup...

[bemymonkey]

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't be falling for that again soon... now if only everyone else could get on board. :(

Interesting ... but $100m is peanuts for Google

[Lazy Jones]

Having to pay Apple $100m annually for the search box is nothing, even though it is probably more than Mozilla gets. Google revenues are what, $28b annually? How much of that is due to being the default search engine in major browsers? They would probably pay 10 times as much if they were asked to, although perhaps not for the iPhone and iPad at this point ...

Re:Interesting ... but $100m is peanuts for Google

[Anonymous Coward]

//How much of that is due to being the default search engine in major browsers?

Not nearly as much as being the first and STILL only search engine that isn't a complete piece of shit.

Argue all you want. That's what got google where they are today. Putting out a quality product people WANT to use. Not because they HAVE to use it.

All the metoos from microsoft, yahoo ect ect... They never got that part.

Re:Interesting ... but $100m is peanuts for Google

[Snaller]

And it hasn't even been proven, its "a source"

Open source and out of control ?

[hebertrich]

Well boo hoo .. :D ,although we do owe them thanks for their modest contribution to this great success.

Morons

[Charliemopps]

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. Anyone that has any sense with regards to the internet knows that Google is orders of magnitude superior to Bing. Baidu's only advantage is not having to comply with take down notices. Bing was able to make gains on Google only after Microsoft sunk ass loads on money into commercial advertising, all the while Google just sat back and watched. Has anyone ever seen a google ad? Google is the Mario Andretti of the search engine world, and Microsoft just came out with Ford Torus with a tail fin and a racing stripe.

Re:Morons

[pedantic bore]

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:Morons

[h4rm0ny]

Anyone that has any sense with regards to the internet knows that Google is orders of magnitude superior to Bing.

Why?

Re:Morons

[TCPhotography]

Has anyone ever seen a google ad? Google is the Mario Andretti of the search engine world, and Microsoft just came out with Ford Torus with a tail fin and a racing stripe.

Yes I have. Earlier this year, they ran one during the Superbowl.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Web, Images, Videos, Shopping, News, Maps, Gmail, Books, Finance, Translate, Scholar, Blogs, Updates, Youtube, Calendar, Photos, Documents, Reader, Sites, Groups, more...

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the sun hot?
Why does it rain?
Why is there danger and
Why is there pain?

Re:Morons

[Charliemopps]

lol, I meant an ad promoting google, not an ad promoting some other company and hosted by google. I thought that was obvious. I was talking about the terrible Bing commercials I see at almost every break on television.

Android Market

[zlogic]

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:Android Market

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Android Market

[mcvos]

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

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Tag story FUD

[mjwx]

Android is open source, that means Bing, Baidu, Google or anyone can use it.

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

[leuk_he]

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
No source for 2.2 on official site today 20 nov

Re:Timeframe

[peragrin]

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

[Americano]

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:Timeframe

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the PC vs Macintosh story all over again. While Apple provides better care and devotes most their time and resources to just a couple of models of phones(3g, 3gs, 4), the Android market is flooded with hundreds of new Phones every year, HTC in particular is guilty of this with their extensive line of phones, all of which get mediocre support, while they have done an Ok job so far, their lack of focusing on one particular phone clearly shows, from poorly coded software that controls the cameras, to buggy and slow Senseui software.

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.

Re:Timeframe

[technomom]

I've had my Incredible since March and it's still very much a viable phone. I'm still getting updates for it and I can't see switching off of it for a long time to come. I think your point is correct about pre-2.1 phones but I think most of the flagship 2.1 phones have been following along pretty well with the updates. My phone has received 2 in the past 3 months. I have no doubt that we'll be seeing Gingerbread on Incredible. As for Apple's updates, I got my iPod Touch shortly before I got my Incredible and the ios 4 updates I got (1) gave me no visible benefit whatsoever and (2) for some inexplicable reason eat battery life like crazy. So, I think the updates are somewhat oversold. Apple, just like their counterparts, could care less about 3G and 2G products now.

Re:Timeframe

[leuk_he]

There might be vendors. Just find out which vendors actually gave update in the past(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 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.

Re:Timeframe

[kevinmenzel]

I seem to recall my blackberry bold 9000 being nicely upgradeable from OS4 to OS5, and there was quite a long time that both those OSs were current - and my current Bold 9700 (my old one was stolen, not made obsolete), is currently running OS6... which will probably be "current" for quite a while...

Re:Timeframe

[peragrin]

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 warranties products for 3 years. That means 3 years worth of updates to every product. If a product line sells poorly it still gets updates.

HTC isn't even trying selling phones today that should have been running 2.2 from the start of their production.

Re:Timeframe

[schnell]

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, Microsoft, Apple et. al.) wants you to stay happy so the next phone you buy is the same OS ... so they have an incentive to get new and improved OS versions into your hands. Samsung and HTC build phones; they get paid when you buy the phone, and they don't make any money when you keep it. So they are actively disincentivized to roll out OS upgrades.

The fact of the matter is that the handset OEMs are the ones that produce phone-specific OS update builds, not the carriers or the OS creators. But they are the parties with the least incentive out of all those three parties to want to produce an update... hence the sorry state of smartphone OS updates.

Re:Timeframe

[tomhuxley]

Carriers don't "lose money" when they "subsidize" your cellphone. Carriers use their ability to buy large quantities of phones to gain a price advantage that they can then leverage into convincing rubes ... excuse me, customers, into signing multi-year contracts for voice/text/data plans.

Yes, the phone manufacturer gets paid for the phone, often ahead of time, but your contract is worth considerably more than either the cost of the cellphone or the services that the carrier provides.

Carriers have no incentive to keep you happy once you've signed your contract until such time as your contract runs out. Then they wave another "subsidized phone" and perhaps throw in some inconsequential benefit to get you to renew.

You are a small insignificant part of their customer base and if you become too much of a hassle or too expensive, then they will be just as happy to see you go.

Re:Timeframe

[Americano]

they actually LOSE money each time you buy a new phone

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 sign a new 2 year contract with them, as soon as you are able. If they spend time upgrading your software once they've already got your money, they're eating into the profits they've made.

The list was chosen quite specifically to highlight the fact that the carriers & the manufacturers (who happen to be both equipment maker & OS vendor) have no vested interest in providing you with upgrades for the life of the phone - how would it be in Samsung's interest to keep you using that Galaxy phone for 7 years? They'll expend all kinds of development effort, in return for what... a few dollars profit per unit? That's pretty thin margins stretched over many years.

Re:Timeframe

[node 3]

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 Android has over iPhone is in the areas that Apple just simply won't address, like built-in physical keyboards and system hacks like lock-screen utilities.

Re:Timeframe

[mcvos]

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 before there are Android phones that can do all of that and more.

Re:Timeframe

[node 3]

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 without lagging behind.

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.

It was only a few months before iPhone 4 that Android phones were even catching up with the 3GS.

I don't think it'll be long before there are Android phones that can do all of that and more.

It's been almost half a year, and there still aren't any truly competitive Android handsets in terms of overall hardware.

The main problem is there are no other companies with the expertise and resources to keep up.

Re:Timeframe

[mcvos]

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 screen resolution, of course. All iPhones had the same resolution, and in order to prevent fragmentation and compatibility problems, Apple didn't want to increase the resolution until they could increase it by 4. Android supports more resolutions and had less problems growing. Only those all had different heights but, if I'm not mistaken, all the same width. So the big question is whether Android already supports bigger widths, or still needs some work. But I'm sure Google is working on that.

Re:Timeframe

[hazydave]

Every Android phone is upgradeable.

The real question is whether the vendor/network will offer the upgrade. The answer is pretty much "yes" for higher-end models, but not necessarily for every device. That's one problem with the way Android is built -- it requires a customized compile of the OS for each phone. This is easily fixed, and will hopefully be done so.

And sure, some phones are not upgradeable in practice.. they're too weak to run a new release of the OS. Like iPhone 3 and 3GS users trying to run iOS 4. And of course, Apple just blew off all older models of the iPhone and iPod.

Technology is like that.

Re:Timeframe

[hazydave]

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 sign a new 2 year contract with them, as soon as you are able. If they spend time upgrading your software once they've already got your money, they're eating into the profits they've made.

Well, it's not the carriers actually making the upgrade, it's the hardware OEMs. Motorola does the Droid port, Verizon pushes it to my phone.

And it's very much in Motorola's interest to keep me happy (which I am). Quite a bit more-so, in fact, for any Android phone maker, simply because there's no single vendor lock-in. Apple, RIM, HP/Palm, they all have you locked-in based on your apps (and in Apple's case, video or e-books). But I can drop the Droid, pick up a Samsung or HTC or other Android phone, and my whole environment, including all apps, will magically just appear on my new device.

Verizon doesn't have the same interest in the device itself, and sure, they'd like to get me back under contract next year when my 2-year Droid contract runs out. But there are various ways to do that. It doesn't cost them measurably to keep my Droid up-to-date on software, and the fact is, treating me as an intelligent smart-phone user is in their long-term best interest. If I get too much crap from them, I can easily move to another carrier once the contract is up. If they really know their smart phone customers, they're not the same people happy with a Nokia soap-bar phone that barely lasts out the contract. They're going to get my upgrade by offering me good service now and a very good upgrade path next year. The Droid is a great phone... way more rugged than my old Palm Treo, I don't think it'll be falling apart next November.

Give me something much better, and keep the good service, and I'll probably keep Verizon, contract or not. Piss me off, and I'm off to Sprint or T-Mo... assuming either of these has actually improved their coverage in my area. AT&T... no, they're already doing too much messing with their Android offerings. Not interested. And their network sucks.

Re:Timeframe

[hazydave]

Nope. The iPhone 4 fixed things for a little while, but Apple was really far behind. Every high end smart phone in 2009-2010 had at least an 800x480 display... Apple waited until halfway though 2010 to match or exceed that. Apple still doesn't have real keyboards (even as an option), memory card slots, etc. They didn't even match the CPU performance in the iPhone 4 (about 800MHz, based on benchmarks against the iPad).. most high end smartphones are 1GHz, and will be going to dual core and faster clocks long before the next iPhone upgrade. Similarly, they at least matched the 512MB of RAM that was fairly common over the last year, but new phones are already going to 1GB -- increasingly important when you can multitask. They've also matched last year's best cellphone cameras, but not this year's. Also, not iPhone with a larger display.. some people like the 4+" screens. And while IPS is nice, OLED is better still for media viewing. Apple caught up to some Android phones, lost on some points, won on others.. but that's lucky to last out the year.

And let's not even mention the actual phone part. Apple's having trouble with their single antenna shorting across a finger... sure, an exaggerated problem, but they're still not implementing diversity antennas in their devices, much less MIMO. The iPhone 4 was the first iPhone to actually fully support HSPA speeds ... after some "4G" (more or less) phones are already on the market. Ok, so AT&T's not rolling out LTE until next summer, thus the iPhone 5 or whatever, but Apple could have supported HSPA+, which AT&T finished upgrading last summer. Again, they're not even serious about playing catch up on issues that are important for many users.

It's not all bad... they did a nice job on the battery life, something HTC could learn. And that, even with a fairly power hungry IPS display, though her phone did blank the screen very quickly, so I suspect there's some power paranoia going on somewhere in there. On a weekend camping even, my sister's iPhone 4 was easily outlasting my Droid, not 2:1 but a healthy win. Of course, I had four spare batteries, so I was the one with a still-working phone that last day. That's another problem with the iPhone that Apple will never fix.

Risk? No, opportunity!

[pedantic bore]

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 not a worry now. Google doesn't care much whether you visit their sites or use their aps on an Android-powered phone or any other kind of phone; they get paid either way. If Microsoft or Baidu is willing to take over some or all of the cost of developing the software necessary for Google to serve ads to mobile users, Google would probably be delighted to let them.

Android Future is Here Now...

[BoRegardless]

& Equals Fragmentation.

The average person is going to start to look at all the different Android phones like I and so many people already look at media center/TV remotes.

They are ALL DIFFERENT, all hopelessly filled with buttons we never use and with frustrating results when we get into sub-choice menu situations where we can't easily figure out how to get back to where we wanted to be, which is usually just to a new station.

Consistency breeds a certain comfort level in being "competent" to figure out how to use a device. Car manufacturers figured this out over 50 years ago.

Re:Android Future is Here Now...

[oiron]

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 opposite sides to mine. Yet, both cars are still good, and satisfy each of our needs, and really, figuring out a couple of new controls every now and then is hardly an uphill task that's too difficult for our puny human brains.

And I assume that you've never ridden different motorbikes - the gear placement and kick-start on different vehicles is always a nice topic for conversations, yet I can take my friend's bike and ride it with about as much comfort as my own.

I'll let you get back to your walled Apple garden now, where you don't have to get confused by all those buttons!

Deja Vu its Java all over again

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like Java and Sun?

Google competes on apps, not lock-in

[mspohr]

Google usually competes by trying to have better quality applications... starting with their search engine and extending to mail, maps, documents, etc. A competitor could try to replace all of these with better alternatives and it would be a good thing for competition and choice if they could do it but I don't think that Google is worried about this happening in the near future. They seem to keep producing compelling free applications that people adopt voluntarily on the open Internet, not because they are locked into some proprietary platform. If Microsoft can produce a better suite of apps and compete on the open Internet then we all benefit. However, Bing is not an auspicious start and the rest of their apps are far behind Google's offerings.

Re:Google competes on apps, not lock-in

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod down for astroturfing.

www.techknackblogs.com

[techknackblogs]

i really doubt tht google won't be benefitting.....they will have a massive ads network which inturn increase its revenue.. :)

All of China?

[hotsauce]

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:All of China?

[oiron]

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.

Andori generally speaking

[Anonymous Coward]

Personal opinion is that over the long haul, Android will NOT do well. They have not the control over the usage it. Look at the differences between carriers and handset makers in terms of crapware (do I hear Verizon????) and updates to O/S. That is why I think IPhone and Blackberry do so well: there is CONTROL over all aspects of the devices. That is also why I think Win Phone 7 will ultimatly do fairly well. (poor launch weekend did not help). All 3 require standardization. Sorry, deviated from the crux of the article

Re:Andori generally speaking

[Anthony Mouse]

Personal opinion is that over the long haul, Android will NOT do well. They have not the control over the usage it.

Open vs. closed, open wins out over the long run. AOL vs. the web, Unix vs. Linux, closed winning is an outlier. It tends to happen in short bursts: A company that wants control comes up with something cool, they keep their control for a while, then people who don't want to live under someone else's thumb create a substitute for their product and the controlling party either has to open their platform (as Microsoft has generally done just enough to stay on top) or lose market share to the open competitor.

Right now the parties pushing for control (Apple excepted) are mostly the carriers. But some day soon someone is going to start selling an Android phone for $200 at retail that allows you to make Google Voice calls and browse the web, both using 802.11, whether you have a carrier or not. Then the 80% of people who are almost never out of range of an 802.11 access point are going to start wondering WTF they're paying $500/year to the carriers for. The only thing stopping that from happening right now is that the phones cost $600 instead of $200 at retail, and people would rather pay $50/month for two years for plan+phone than pay $600 up front. But eventually the price of the phones will come down.

At that point the carriers lose their leverage. The advantage in having a carrier at all is no longer to have a mobile device or make phone calls or browse the web or use mobile apps, since you can have those without them. It's so that you can use Google Maps from wherever you are when you get lost, or call a tow truck from the side of the road. For which paying a one-time fee for non-expiring prepaid for emergencies starts to look pretty attractive compared to a $500/year plan that you only use once every few months when you're outside WiFi range.

And if we still have open phones popularly available when that day comes, the carriers aren't going to be in a position to tell you what updates you can install or which browser you can use any more than Comcast is in a position today to stop you from using Ubuntu on your PC.

Re:Andori generally speaking

[oiron]

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.

Re:Andori generally speaking

[hazydave]

Control isn't what wins a market. In fact, there are very few mature markets that have ever been controlled by proprietary solutions. I can think of one: video gaming consoles. And the only reason that's dominated by proprietary systems: the manufacturers sell the hardware below cost, and make up revenue on the software.

Apple is not going away, probably not RIM either. But neither has a chance of dominating the market again. Proprietary systems offer too much lock-down and too few user choices.

And in fact, Apple absolutely can't do anything to really compete with Android. Android devices are competing with Apple's iPhone, but they're also increasingly going downscale. Apple can't release a low cost iPhone, because their whole business is based on being a premium brand. People pay Apple way too much money for that Apple logo, and that's why Apple's profits are much more akin to a software company's than to a hardware company's -- they really are selling you the software, with a fairly normal device in a very nicely made case. Same reason Cadillac or Mercedes don't produce down-scale vehicles... cheaper models would hurt profits. They're all selling exclusivity.

That's can't happen in the Android market. Some CE companies, like Sony and Panasonic, are getting on board, and will probably only offer top-tier products. But the traditional cellphone companies, HTC, Motorola, etc. are hitting all price points, just as they always have. And with China going huge on Android (it's the basis of China Mobile's OPhone... China Moble has more customers than the USA has people), low cost Chinese Android phones are pretty much a foregone conclusion.

In shot, its the same dynamic that allowed the PC and Windows to dominate, hardware and software. Apple moved to use bog standard PCs hidden inside their Mac casework, and while they're getting Samsung to design custom versions of their ARM SOCs, and may do their own eventually, they're still building on the same ARM embedded gene pool as everyone else (eg, Qualcomm, TI, Samsung, Marvell, etc). You can even run Android on the older iPhones, and pretty soon, on the iPhone 4 as well. Remind you of anything?

RIM's in worse shape, because their OS and hardware are not up to the standard set by Apple and the various Android suppliers. They're fixing the OS -- they bought QNX, which is going into their tablet now and will replace Blackberry OS in the next generation. Maybe that's

Harvard is full of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to love morons in business school who take their cues from the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and believe that wealth comes from monopolizing information. Idiots. Free Market information, Open Source information, is the only reliable method to ensure development. During the Middle Ages in Europe when the Church funded and controlled scientific research and development the economic and social development stagnated. As the Renaissance and the sharing of technological information economic and social development has increased exponentially. As communication and sharing of technology has increased exponentially so has technological development. The last 500 years have seen incredible strides in both areas which are now threatened by MBA and PolSci morons who believe monopolizing information and technology is the key to the future. Harvard Business school is filled with morons who would have wonderful Cardinals in the European middle ages and who would gladly return us to those “Good Old Days”.

we all win

[t2t10]

Google wins with Android simply because Microsoft and Apple can't hold up app approvals for a year and a half or mess with Google's web sites. If they get any revenue out of Android, that's icing on the cake.

Yeah...

[Rip Dick]

Cuz Microsoft is so good at seizing opportunities these days...

Google doesn't care

[symbolset]

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.

The Battle for Search Revenue

[hotsauce]

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 the groupthink on /.

Re:The Battle for Search Revenue

[blarkon]

Mod parent up. He gets it.

Old-fashioned world view

[dr.newton]

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.

Re:Old-fashioned world view

[jernejk]

How so? My P1i from a few years back is a java-enabled touch screen phone.

Java will fail before Android

[bendemott]

Although I understand why Java was used...Java will cause the demise of Android and the dependency on the java platform as a whole long before Android as an operating system will experience pressure from market forces. I'm no fan of apple, but compiled Objective-C has a bright future ahead of it where Java simply does not. When mobile phones start to receive multi-core processors Java will become even more of a hindrance because the Linux kernel attempts to manage user-threads intelligently, Java virtualizes the operating system not allowing TRUE threads to be managed, or allocated to the hardware efficiently.

Re:Java will fail before Android

[hazydave]

Not even remotely true. In fact, there are JVMs (not necessarily in phones yet) that can pull implicit threads out of not explicitly threaded code. Sun's MAJC project was one of these, there are others. It's hardly an issue for the near future anyway.. you don't need anything like that on a dual-headed ARM -- particularly when you have real multitasking, as on Android, each core will have plenty of work to do when the phone gets busy.

And of course, how the JVM actually handles threads, whether they're real or simulated, is entirely hidden to applications written in Java. Decisions the JVM and OS make on today's phones will be tuned differently for true SMP systems. That's actually true of native systems, too... the kernel is ultimately in charge of how threads are handled, anyway.

Objective-C is essentially a proprietary language, and will live or die entirely on Apple's fortunes. That's not to suggest it's going to fail any time soon, not as long as Apple can keep selling the same stuff for twice the price. But it's useless outside Apple's walled garden.

Re:Java will fail before Android

[bendemott]

Not even remotely true. In fact, there are JVMs (not necessarily in phones yet) that can pull implicit threads out of not explicitly threaded code. Sun's MAJC project was one of these, there are others. It's hardly an issue for the near future anyway.. you don't need anything like that on a dual-headed ARM -- particularly when you have real multitasking, as on Android, each core will have plenty of work to do when the phone gets busy.

And of course, how the JVM actually handles threads, whether they're real or simulated, is entirely hidden to applications written in Java. Decisions the JVM and OS make on today's phones will be tuned differently for true SMP systems. That's actually true of native systems, too... the kernel is ultimately in charge of how threads are handled, anyway.

Objective-C is essentially a proprietary language, and will live or die entirely on Apple's fortunes. That's not to suggest it's going to fail any time soon, not as long as Apple can keep selling the same stuff for twice the price. But it's useless outside Apple's walled garden.

Directly from Java's Website: One major difference between developing on Linux from other Unix operating systems is the system threads library. In Java 2 releases prior to 1.3, the Java virtual machine uses its own threads library, known as green threads, to implement threads in the Java platform. The advantage here is that green threads minimize the Java virtual machine's exposure to differences in the Linux threads library and makes the port easier to complete. The downside is that using green threads means system threads on Linux are not taken advantage of and so the Java virtual machine is not scalable when additional CPUs are added. Currently the only way to get Android to actually thread is to use JNI to run native threads. Also, I'm not sure if you are a developer or not, but if you had ever written a threaded program and actually benchmarked it you would know that contention for concurrency / locking can bring a threading program to a crawl or defeat the purpose altogether, therefore you should be very wary of solutions that claim to automatically 'thread' a program. My latter point was about threading, my main point was that Java as a platform now led by Oracle will not be able to contend with a GCC compiled program; The iPhone will continue to enjoy superior performance with native code, there is just no debating that.

Androids Future...

[FlyingGuy]

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 Mobile will be there but right now they are confusing the hell out of everyone who is finally getting comfortable with desktop Windows 7 because in their efforts to me more iPhone like their interface is confused and muddled.

So Android with it's amazing lack of a coherent set of suggestions much less standards is facing UI fracture hell because nothing looks the same app to app unless it is core phone functions.

You play with one iOS device you have played with them all and you know how to maximize what you have, not so with Andriod and not yet so with Win-7 Mobile.

The jury is still out on a lot of things, but the one verdict that has been rendered unquestionably is that the iPhone pardigm is the one to emulate and beat if you can, but I really doubt that anyone can do that.

Re:Androids Future...

[hazydave]

Android is a significant improvement over the iOS in many areas -- the iOS bar was not all that high. WebOS also trumps the iOS in most areas, its just unfortunate that Palm was in no position to really see it successful. Hopefully HP will do better.

iOS is "slick" in many little details, in a way that Android isn't, but that doesn't really add much to its usefulness. Meanwhile, iOS is still rooted in desktop metaphors for things like notifications... do you really need a pop up notification, which has to be answered, on a device that could have a few dozen interesting things happening while its in your pocket? Of course, that wasn't even possible until iOS 4... they're still largely thinking single tasking. And Apple's iron hand is still there -- only Apple can create daemons, even if apps can now more or less get background messages.

In short, this last year had Apple playing catch up. iOS and the iPhone had fallen far behind Android and the available devices. They haven't fully caught up yet, though iOS 4 and the iPhone 4 certainly helped. But mark this -- this is the pattern we're going to see every year from now on: Apple catches up a little, Android + Devices push farther ahead than they did last year. Just as on the MacOS, at some point Apple won't even be trying to catch up in some areas.

Of course, Apple fans will accept that, since Steve says it ain't so.

Re:Androids Future...

[FlyingGuy]

Android is a significant improvement over the iOS in many areas -- the iOS bar was not all that high.

Gotta disagree with you there. I had used most every smart phone / PDA until the iPhone hot the market and was so relieved, one single interface standard, on set of controls to learn how to deal with and it is slick, its pro, it's coherent and the paradigm is enforced.

WebOS also trumps the iOS in most areas, its just unfortunate that Palm was in no position to really see it successful. Hopefully HP will do better.

Web OS in its current incarnation is not that great. It is pretty slow and the off screen controls don't make a lot of sense. I think it has potential, but it needs to have some serious standards built around the apps since like Android, there is nothing remotely close to standards and you can end up with apps that have UI insanity, not good for the greater market. This is fun for geeks but for the average user it just sucks.

iOS is "slick" in many little details, in a way that Android isn't, but that doesn't really add much to its usefulness. Meanwhile, iOS is still rooted in desktop metaphors for things like notifications... do you really need a pop up notification, which has to be answered, on a device that could have a few dozen interesting things happening while its in your pocket?

Again it is all those little details that make the difference. And yes pop-ups are good since if you don;t have them the notifications get buried in the mass of icons that can and do build up on the main screen. I can understand people who don't like them and it would be nice if there was a small notification area that informed one of pending notifications and popped up the list of them like OpenSuse does. Perhaps it should be an option ( shrug ). The problem with having a few dozen things happening in the background is it will eat your battery rather quickly, not something I am personaly fond of.

Of course, that wasn't even possible until iOS 4... they're still largely thinking single tasking. And Apple's iron hand is still there -- only Apple can create daemons, even if apps can now more or less get background messages.

In short, this last year had Apple playing catch up. iOS and the iPhone had fallen far behind Android and the available devices. They haven't fully caught up yet, though iOS 4 and the iPhone 4 certainly helped.

Apple is being very careful with the advancement of the iPhone and iOS. They are maintaining performance while figuring out ways to make it do more simultaneously. So many other phones have been a complete drag because when you turn on all those goodies either things get slow and clunky or the battery life just goes to hell. I applaud Apple ( and any other mobile OS manufacturer ) because they take the time and make it work and make it work well and seamlessly in a package that, and I hate to sound like a broken record here, once you have used it once, you know it on all other devices using that OS / Interface. As to Apple falling far behind Android and the others? I think you are looking at it with geek eyes instead of consumer eyes because if you were you would not make that statement. When Apple gets off the AT&T hook here soon I think you are going to see Android getting pulled back in and Apple beginning to eat it's lunch. This does not take into consideration Win Mobile 7 which even off to a slow start will get traction and will be a market driver of some sort.

But mark this -- this is the pattern we're going to see every year from now on: Apple catches up a little, Android + Devices push farther ahead than they did last year. Just as on the MacOS, at some point Apple won't even be trying to catch up in some areas.

Of course, Apple fans will accept that, since Steve says it ain't so.

You really do under estimate Apple. I can tell you are an open source guy so again I thi

The Adds don't come just with the search engine...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why they ship phone's with Bing as search engine, other than Microsoft is paying them. But the Adds that pay Google's bill on my phone, come with the Apps and at many other places. But not so much in the search engine, like it does on the PC. So is replacing the search engine on Android really hurting Google? Google seems to have the Add system build deep into the system of Android instead if the search engine, so I doubt if Bing is able to hurt them like the article suggests.

open playing field

[Anonymous Coward]

Google can compete on an open playing field.. others are welcomed, the competition will be good for all. I'd rather see open vs. open battling than an open vs closed. Sure there are some closed off bits, but it sounds like the year of linux on the 'Mobile' Now hardware folks have to play better with Linux and these techs may begin to find partners on the Linux Desktop.

So thanks google for promoting an open playing field. Lets hope others embrace it. Apple will probably call this more fragmentation (though its not the same as UI fragmentation) but the momentum is a beautiful thing.

service VS product

[Anonymous Coward]

google probably doesn't care too much about it being open or closed and used by others or not.

there is a diffrence, microsofts main sales are product sales
google is mainly in services.

microsoft gets money from 1 sale, google gets money every X time for the service that is used.
so its not as important that the product is sold, but that they can easily continue working on the product.
if IOS and win7 totally closed themselves for google, they would get no more cash because they cant continue their service
now they don't have to care, everybody can work on android, especially google. so all their services work.

There is no fragmentation

[Snaller]

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.

The key is in the Android Market

[feranick]

One crucial factor the article doesn't mention is Android Market. Although a vast part of Android is open source, besides the traditional google applications, Android Market is closed source. Not only that but to be able to use it a phone manufacturer has to receive permission from Google. Without that Android is a platform with no apps. I am not sure what is the strategy for Badu (or Bing) to create a competing market...

One more bump for the parent please

[symbolset]

Followup with link to and quote from the relevant source material:

"Critical mass" is a term borrowed from nuclear physics, in which it means "a sufficient mass of fissionable material to sustain a chain reaction," in which a chain reaction is defined to be "a self-sustaining nuclear reaction yielding energy that causes further reactions of the same kind."

"Self-sustaining" is the key phrase in this definition. Once started, the nuclear reaction naturally reinvests its energy in perpetuating and growing the reaction. Once the point of criticality is reached, no additional external energy or intervention is required to maintain the reaction. - James Plamondon, Microsoft, 1/11/2000. From the Groklaw Comes Vs Microsoft Collection, exhibit 3096.

By the way, when somebody talks about "cannibalization" as if it's a bad thing, it's because the referenced platform has already reached this "critical mass" state. The petrification process has set in, and innovation is the "cannibalization" being stifled as a housekeeping cost of maintaining the monopoly for as long as possible. Once critical mass is reached progress is the only threat, and a small one because developing momentum is difficult from a static position. Cannibalization is an artful label to tag progress with to trigger a visceral defensive reaction from you, the audience. From the static state an innovator has to step entirely outside the field of action like Apple and Google did to build up enough forward motion to make a significant change.

If you're considering moderating this post informative, please bump the parent instead. I'm collecting +5s for my achievements, and subscriber and karma bonus points don't count.

Am i glad i don't live in the USA

[krischik]

and i never bee tempted to use Verizon - ever.

If MSFT and Apple win less per phone, Google wins

[Anonymous Coward]

People are really retarded.

A free cellphone OS means Windows Mobile and iOS are going to get it deep in they a**e. And that means MSFT and Apple stock won't be as stellar as they would have if they had been dominating the cellphone market.

So even if Google was to win no actual money on cellphones having Android they'd still be *huge* winners because they're putting it *deep* to MS and Apple.

And GMail / search engine / cellphone are *just* the beginning.

At this point Google are pretty much winners before the next game even starts: because they define what the next game is.

I don't think Google is surprised here, really...

[hazydave]

After all, they actually understand the concept of "free software" and all that entails. The need for Android was to ensure that mobile search (search, of course, being Google's bread and butter) didn't fall under the control of a small number of proprietary systems. After all, when they started this, every smart phone OS was at least some degree proprietary, some (iOS, BlackBerryOS, Palm's WebOS) fully so.

The open source release is the driving factor behind Android's success. They had to sell to the OEMs, after all, and that's what did it. The OEMs clearly could not compete on their own against Apple or the other proprietary brands, or they would have already done so. It was intentional, to allow their choice of the level of customizations they wanted. And most of those really aren't that terrible... hacking in Bing! is a bad idea, but changing the UI shell, not that big of a deal. You can find other alternates in the Android Market, if you don't like what your phone came with.

And Google isn't losing control of the source development. If there are things OEMs do that really bother them, they can change the OS to compensate. OEMs could fight some of that, but is that kind of development really in their best interest.

The big success of Google is based on one significant thing: people actually want their stuff. No one has to pay Verizon to inflict Google Search on their customers... the customers want this. Thus, the availability of "Google Experience" phones, like my Droid 1 -- assurance that Verizon didn't muck with it. In fact, had Verizon not launched with that, I might well have gone to a different carrier for my Android phone. Verizon, after all, had the worst reputation in the business for meddling in phone firmware and options. Thankfully, AT&T stole that crown away, though the way Verizon's playing, they might be after it again.

But that's clearly Google's other option: advertising themselves. They've built their reputation, they've build Android, without any actual Google ads at all. Again, people want their stuff. Sure, Verizon and others have active ad campaigns, which help, but that success is also based on a fair degree of cooperation with Google. If they got too radical with mods and user lock-outs, Google certainly has the cash and clout to quash that.

Viral?

[teachknowlegy]

I kind of see Droid as a viral takedown of Microsoft and Apple. Sure, Google loses on the front end of it, but then they have a shot on the backside, after the disease becomes mainstream (as it has virtually become). A few years back, the rave was this new Blackberry! It let you get *e-mail* from work on your cell phone...ooh. Now if you want a phone that does not have work email following you to the toilet in your own house you have to pay extra to remove the feature!