Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
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.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.