"Because it's exactly 2x of the resolution on iPad 2, and iOS APIs do not have any good provisions for flexible, dynamic UI that can scale with resolution. This means that, when it comes to running apps made for past devices, Apple has to linearly upscale them, bitmaps and all. And bitmaps look very bad if you don't upscale them by a nice integer factor, like 2x."
Sure it does. It has the exact same tools that Mac apps get for dynamically resizing. I've even taken apps from the iPhone to the iPad and they resize wonderfully.
The reason Apple does this is because they don't want interface elements changing physical size, which is very important for touch. If you double the resolution, and an app simply resizes, your buttons get half as tall and half as wide, and you can't tap them reliably any more. Because of this, Apple prefers to change the resolution but not the size of everything on the screen.
This in turn leads to an ugly problem. If you're not exactly doubling pixels, you have to do interpolation, leading to ugly looking bitmaps, and increased CPU overhead. Therefore it's preferable to double the DPI exactly to avoid that problem.
It's not an API limitation, it's a "let's pay attention to detail and not make things look like ass" thing. I've seen quite a few Android applications that ignore this, heavily use bitmaps, and then look awful on Android tablets when they get hit by interpolation.
"the fact he won't let you deal with multi-media data on external USB/FireWire drives on Mac OS X"
Errr that's not true.
"the FUD he had the company spread about OGG/Vorbis"
Again not true. They had legitimate reasons (quality concerns and hardware acceleration), and they allow OGG in QuickTime/iTunes through plugins.
"and the face Apple officially doesn't even acknowledge Linux exist even"
Again, huh? Apple has numerous open source projects where Linux is a supported platform. They even considered Linux as the basis for iOS, which they publicly mentioned. Apple also for the longest time supported MkLinux, Linux running on their own kernel.
This sounds like an angry, non-sensical rant, not really a well thought out series of points.
I'd like to know what you think the better alternative is. Apple currently ships the best Activesync compatible phone on the market, better than even Windows Phone 7. Android has barely started to ship something reasonable in ICS.
So if Apple products don't work well, what kind of smart phones are you going to be deploying?
"Just barely, and only if you believe that overtly biased analyst's estimate. And why would you count the Touch as a phone? Apples to apples please:-)"
Because people are counting for deciding which platform to deploy apps onto. Do iPod Touches run the same apps as the iPhone? If yes, it counts.
The Android devices that are not phones were also counted, so in that respect this is still an apple to apple comparison.
That was my initial reaction. If it were Mozilla or Wikipedia telling Google to be less evil, that would be one thing. But Facebook, one of the more evil companies on the planet, beseeching Google not to be evil?
Considering Mozilla takes money from Google, I wouldn't be inclined to trust their opinion (or lack of) either.
I'm not saying Android is a horrible platform for everyone, certainly you seem to like it better. I'm just saying we could play this game all day, and in reality, people are going to like different platforms for different reasons. Which certainly isn't what the fanboys want to hear.
"i don't consider myself a full android fanboy, but based on these facts alone, you can get MUCH better android devices for far cheaper than a handicapped iPhone."
Better is a subjective term. Do people care about the hardware specs? People care about how a devices feels and operates, and sure, hardware enters into that. But comparing the iPhone hardware and Android hardware like all other things are equal is... disingenuous. I mean, if you want to play that game, the 4S has a much better GPU than the Galaxy S2 and a much more responsive OS. But I'm just trading one subjective comparison for another.
A rather significant part of any student's life is assignments, which generally involve some degree of "research" (lots of web pages, PDFs, other documents, images, copy/pasting, multitasking, etc). The iPad is horrendously bad in this sort of usage scenario, even compared to something as limited as a Netbook.
What this all boils down to is that tablets are first and foremost consumption devices, and fairly limited even at that (multiple web pages on the iPad are trying due to its limited performance and incessant page reloading - throw multiple informationj sources into the mix like videos or PDFs and it becomes an exercise in frustration).
PDFs download just fine to my iPad and run in a PDF viewer. iBooks is my personal choice but there are many others.
They start to falter (if not outright fail) once most types of non-trivial (say, much more than a facebook post or short email) information creation or interaction is required. This is not to say tablets *cannot* be used for creation, or even excel at some forms of it, merely that as a *general solution* they are inferior to laptops and desktop PCs.
Heck, I'm not even talking about coding. The majority of stuff I do on my computer these days (outside of work) is reading web pages(/PDFs, etc), watching videos and posting to discussion forums - hardly anything particularly intense. I've tried spending my typical leisure computing time using only my iPad, and lasted about an hour before giving up and grabbing one of my laptops.
Again, iPads can't cover all edge cases, but starting with iOS 4, and iPad got a lot more usable for me, and I started carrying it as my primary machine the last year of my degree. I saw other students (happily) using them full time.
There are always going to be exceptions, just like as a CS student there were some situations in which I needed a laptop instead of a desktop. But in general, for most students, especially non technical students, an iPad with a keyboard, and a good word processor like Pages covers all the bases.
That's also not to say a good laptop isn't a better tool for some people. If a student can comfortably afford an Air or a PC notebook, by all means, having the bigger screen is nice if you're willing to sacrifice portability. Where the iPad is really catching on is with students who would be using Netbooks (which were pretty large numbers.) An iPad is more portable than a netbook, and the software is better tuned for performance on lower end hardware (Windows 7 is still fat on a netbook.)
The point is that a tablet is a _complementary_ device. Few people would, if forced to choose, select a tablet as their *only* "computer".
Again, I'm not sure I agree. For the average person, an iPad has all the functionality they would use in a laptop (including hardware keyboard) with more flexible mobility.
Let's face it. Most people send email, browse the web, and check Facebook. The iPad is a champ at all those things. For college students who need to take notes or do presentations, the iPad has printing, HDMI/DVI/VGA out, and a fully functional version of iWork.
Yes, there are certainly edge cases. As a developer who needs to use Xcode, I wouldn't use an iPad as a primary machine (because of screen size and lack of availability of Xcode), but it's easy to see how joe six pack could use an iPad as their primary machine. (Case and point, my mother is using an iPad right now as her primary machine. Only pulls out the computer when she needs to use a flatbed scanner.)
An iPad has an advantage of being a laptop with a keyboard when I want one, and a tablet when I don't. A Macbook Air is a laptop when I want one, and a laptop when I don't.
That's not to say the Macbook Air isn't a nice machine, and it has a better software library... But it's also more expensive, and arguably doesn't provide any more needed functionality to a lot of college students.
then why did they ever give them a piece of the pie to begin with? android can't be called anything other than a massive success for google. everyone is making $. there's no reason for anyone to be unhappy with the current arrangement. google never wanted to get into the hardware market. it's full of slim profits and stiff competition
"I will bet you dollars to donuts that I can take better notes faster in a spiral notebook than you can on a tablet. But then, I'm old school."
So... we should all be using spiral notebooks? Not sure what you're getting at.
Keyboard with my iPad means I can do all the real document work I need to, at laptop speeds. iOS has a full version of Pages with good feature parity of the desktop version, so I can do all the professional fancy word documents and presentations that I need to.
Really, the biggest disadvantage to the iPad is the screen size, which is also why I don't do coding on it. All this talk about input functionality is missing the mark. Tablets have got the keyboards and they've got the software (at least on iOS side.)
"I replied on Andriod and I always get responses critizing grammar and sentence structure etc. A keyboard rocks for college students writing papers. However, for consuming time wasting tweets a cell phone is better."
I'm not sure the keyboard thing is a big issue. Like I said, you can couple a tablet with a keyboard. With my iPad, I have a little bluetooth keyboard for when I need it, and the advantage of more mobility when I don't. (Try carrying and using a calendar or email program on an open laptop while you're walking around, probably not going to end well.)
extremely unlikely. they have no experience producing hardware of any sort, which is why they turn to partners for everything (google tv, chromebook, and android phones).
They'd likely buyout a hardware company that had tons of experience. Someone like Motorola.
Oh wait.
because their OS keeps people using google services which keeps people using google search which is where they make 99.999% of their profits.
And producing their own hardware would make them even more money, and insure that there are plenty of Android devices on the market regardless of the whims of Samsung, in turn keeping people on Google services.
in all likelihood, they won't keep motorola around. expect it to be sold.
or, google can keep them around to make prototype devices, or some other niche that doesn't threaten other device makers. they can afford to do that.
Which is certainly an option, but again, like Samsung doesn't want to see their fate controlled by Google, I doubt Google wants to have their fate controlled by the device makers.
Computer labs are still pretty common because CS student deal with specialized machines. A university can't expect students to have a 16 core machine for multicore work, a Tesla for GPGPU programming, or a cluster for cluster work. Because CS is includes learning about the next big thing (at least it should be at a decent school), CS programs are always a step ahead of what the student usually has at home.
Now, that said, no, you don't need a 16 core box for introductory Java, and yes, when I graduated last year a lot of student still had laptops. But often the laptops were just used to remote into a more powerful lab machine. Lab machines are also generally required in CS programs because you don't want to have to deal with the Windows students when you're teaching a UNIX course (or walk the students through what IDE/compiler is best for their platform.) Labs add a degree of consistency to the program. Don't know how to setup your home machine? Great, you have a lab one with all the software already licensed.
Which is another good point. You can't really expect every student has MATLAB at home.
Define real work. With just a keyboard, a tablet is extremely productive for note taking, email, and organization, which is pretty much all most college students do. Tablets can wirelessly print these days too. It's a great form factor for carrying with you, without the huge bulk of a laptop bag.
For high end students like CS students? Dell is more correct, a PC would be first priority, followed by a tablet. You can't and shouldn't be doing technical work like coding on a tablet. Dell has a pretty narrow vision here of what tablets are capable of. And it's not hard to see a world in which high end students using campus provided labs for the big stuff, and tablets for everything else.
For someone who claims to not believe in tablets, Michael Dell seems to be trying hard to break into the market. Maybe his lack of understanding about tablets is why Dell is having problems getting into the market. Apple certainly sells a lot of them for a nonexistent market.
google exists to make a profit. sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly. business units within companies quite often speak to each other concerning larger business strategies.
I agree. Android alone as a product does not generate profit for Google, in fact it's likely a substantial loss. Sure, Google makes up for that in ads, but they could generate more profit making the hardware too.
If there wasn't profit in hardware, or the profits are "inconsequential", why is Samsung making so much money? If Google is in the business of making money, why are they giving away their operating system, and buying a hardware maker that is treading water? Google will either have to discontinue Motorola hardware and scrap them for the patents, or actually get Motorola into shape as a moneymaking operation. If they already have the patents they wanted to get, why keep a turkey like Motorola around in it's current state?
"But we do know that Google would have no choice but to acquiesce, otherwise Samsung could turn to Windows Phone (which would ruin Samsung's sales overnight), or they could fork the OS and make their own version - even though that would also result in their sales dropping."
Would it ruin Samsung's sales overnight? I think that's the question the article is posing. Is Samsung successful based of Android's brand, or is Android successful based off Samsung's brand? If Samsung changed their OS, would consumers even notice? Or would they just think their new phone has a different UI than their old one, but still plays Angry Birds?
I honestly don't hear many people saying they bought a Samsung because it runs Android. Most people just want a phone with email and web, and if it's not an iPhone they want, they'll go with whatever is on sale. That usually is a Samsung. Android often doesn't play into it.
Motorola is continuing to make Android hardware while owned by Google, yes.
Google is claiming that they are going to let Motorola's hardware development continue independently, but there are limits to that sort of reasoning. Motorola Mobility now exists to generate a profit for Google and is beholden to Google's shareholders. Every sale Motorola takes from Samsung is now attributable to Google. Heck, if Google hadn't bought Motorola, there is a somewhat decent chance that Motorola would be out of business eventually, and Samsung would have more of the market to itself.
Google saving Motorola probably has hurt Samsung's market share outlook.
"Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business."
Has this not happened already with the Motorola buyout? Google can claim it's operated independently, but it's still Google's mobile hardware arm. That alone has to piss off Samsung, and at the very least, make them look at a "plan b" for software.
"At that point it may not be "Android Powered by Google", but that seems to be what South Korea wants."
Well that's the point, isn't it? It's a question if Google refusing to bless devices not using Google search an abuse of monopoly power. Much like Microsoft refusing to bless (or giving bad terms) to manufacturers who wanted to bundle Netscape instead of IE.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because it's exactly 2x of the resolution on iPad 2, and iOS APIs do not have any good provisions for flexible, dynamic UI that can scale with resolution. This means that, when it comes to running apps made for past devices, Apple has to linearly upscale them, bitmaps and all. And bitmaps look very bad if you don't upscale them by a nice integer factor, like 2x."
Sure it does. It has the exact same tools that Mac apps get for dynamically resizing. I've even taken apps from the iPhone to the iPad and they resize wonderfully.
The reason Apple does this is because they don't want interface elements changing physical size, which is very important for touch. If you double the resolution, and an app simply resizes, your buttons get half as tall and half as wide, and you can't tap them reliably any more. Because of this, Apple prefers to change the resolution but not the size of everything on the screen.
This in turn leads to an ugly problem. If you're not exactly doubling pixels, you have to do interpolation, leading to ugly looking bitmaps, and increased CPU overhead. Therefore it's preferable to double the DPI exactly to avoid that problem.
It's not an API limitation, it's a "let's pay attention to detail and not make things look like ass" thing. I've seen quite a few Android applications that ignore this, heavily use bitmaps, and then look awful on Android tablets when they get hit by interpolation.
I hear the colonists had a propensity for burning witches.
"the fact he won't let you deal with multi-media data on external USB/FireWire drives on Mac OS X"
Errr that's not true.
"the FUD he had the company spread about OGG/Vorbis"
Again not true. They had legitimate reasons (quality concerns and hardware acceleration), and they allow OGG in QuickTime/iTunes through plugins.
"and the face Apple officially doesn't even acknowledge Linux exist even"
Again, huh? Apple has numerous open source projects where Linux is a supported platform. They even considered Linux as the basis for iOS, which they publicly mentioned. Apple also for the longest time supported MkLinux, Linux running on their own kernel.
This sounds like an angry, non-sensical rant, not really a well thought out series of points.
I'd like to know what you think the better alternative is. Apple currently ships the best Activesync compatible phone on the market, better than even Windows Phone 7. Android has barely started to ship something reasonable in ICS.
So if Apple products don't work well, what kind of smart phones are you going to be deploying?
See the Wikipedia entry on Bluetooth. Listed in the use cases for 4.0 (otherwise known as Bluetooth low energy):
"Mobile phones, gaming, PCs, watches, sports and fitness, healthcare, security & proximity, automotive, home electronics, automation, Industrial, etc."
"Just barely, and only if you believe that overtly biased analyst's estimate. And why would you count the Touch as a phone? Apples to apples please :-)"
Because people are counting for deciding which platform to deploy apps onto. Do iPod Touches run the same apps as the iPhone? If yes, it counts.
The Android devices that are not phones were also counted, so in that respect this is still an apple to apple comparison.
That was my initial reaction. If it were Mozilla or Wikipedia telling Google to be less evil, that would be one thing. But Facebook, one of the more evil companies on the planet, beseeching Google not to be evil?
Considering Mozilla takes money from Google, I wouldn't be inclined to trust their opinion (or lack of) either.
Great. Another subjective comparison.
I'm not saying Android is a horrible platform for everyone, certainly you seem to like it better. I'm just saying we could play this game all day, and in reality, people are going to like different platforms for different reasons. Which certainly isn't what the fanboys want to hear.
You're buying a freakin' phone for god's sake, not toilet paper.
I'm way more picky about what phone I'll buy than I am what toilet paper I'll buy.
It would be a bad idea for Google to call their customers liars.
Just pointing out who Google's audience is.
"i don't consider myself a full android fanboy, but based on these facts alone, you can get MUCH better android devices for far cheaper than a handicapped iPhone."
Better is a subjective term. Do people care about the hardware specs? People care about how a devices feels and operates, and sure, hardware enters into that. But comparing the iPhone hardware and Android hardware like all other things are equal is... disingenuous. I mean, if you want to play that game, the 4S has a much better GPU than the Galaxy S2 and a much more responsive OS. But I'm just trading one subjective comparison for another.
A rather significant part of any student's life is assignments, which generally involve some degree of "research" (lots of web pages, PDFs, other documents, images, copy/pasting, multitasking, etc). The iPad is horrendously bad in this sort of usage scenario, even compared to something as limited as a Netbook.
What this all boils down to is that tablets are first and foremost consumption devices, and fairly limited even at that (multiple web pages on the iPad are trying due to its limited performance and incessant page reloading - throw multiple informationj sources into the mix like videos or PDFs and it becomes an exercise in frustration).
PDFs download just fine to my iPad and run in a PDF viewer. iBooks is my personal choice but there are many others.
They start to falter (if not outright fail) once most types of non-trivial (say, much more than a facebook post or short email) information creation or interaction is required. This is not to say tablets *cannot* be used for creation, or even excel at some forms of it, merely that as a *general solution* they are inferior to laptops and desktop PCs.
Heck, I'm not even talking about coding. The majority of stuff I do on my computer these days (outside of work) is reading web pages(/PDFs, etc), watching videos and posting to discussion forums - hardly anything particularly intense. I've tried spending my typical leisure computing time using only my iPad, and lasted about an hour before giving up and grabbing one of my laptops.
Again, iPads can't cover all edge cases, but starting with iOS 4, and iPad got a lot more usable for me, and I started carrying it as my primary machine the last year of my degree. I saw other students (happily) using them full time.
There are always going to be exceptions, just like as a CS student there were some situations in which I needed a laptop instead of a desktop. But in general, for most students, especially non technical students, an iPad with a keyboard, and a good word processor like Pages covers all the bases.
That's also not to say a good laptop isn't a better tool for some people. If a student can comfortably afford an Air or a PC notebook, by all means, having the bigger screen is nice if you're willing to sacrifice portability. Where the iPad is really catching on is with students who would be using Netbooks (which were pretty large numbers.) An iPad is more portable than a netbook, and the software is better tuned for performance on lower end hardware (Windows 7 is still fat on a netbook.)
The point is that a tablet is a _complementary_ device. Few people would, if forced to choose, select a tablet as their *only* "computer".
Again, I'm not sure I agree. For the average person, an iPad has all the functionality they would use in a laptop (including hardware keyboard) with more flexible mobility.
Let's face it. Most people send email, browse the web, and check Facebook. The iPad is a champ at all those things. For college students who need to take notes or do presentations, the iPad has printing, HDMI/DVI/VGA out, and a fully functional version of iWork.
Yes, there are certainly edge cases. As a developer who needs to use Xcode, I wouldn't use an iPad as a primary machine (because of screen size and lack of availability of Xcode), but it's easy to see how joe six pack could use an iPad as their primary machine. (Case and point, my mother is using an iPad right now as her primary machine. Only pulls out the computer when she needs to use a flatbed scanner.)
An iPad has an advantage of being a laptop with a keyboard when I want one, and a tablet when I don't. A Macbook Air is a laptop when I want one, and a laptop when I don't.
That's not to say the Macbook Air isn't a nice machine, and it has a better software library... But it's also more expensive, and arguably doesn't provide any more needed functionality to a lot of college students.
then why did they ever give them a piece of the pie to begin with? android can't be called anything other than a massive success for google. everyone is making $. there's no reason for anyone to be unhappy with the current arrangement. google never wanted to get into the hardware market. it's full of slim profits and stiff competition
Really? Doesn't look like everyone is making slim profits.
http://www.asymco.com/2011/07/29/apple-captured-two-thirds-of-available-mobile-phone-profits-in-q2/
I bet Google would love to have some of those "slim profits" added to their bottom line.
"I will bet you dollars to donuts that I can take better notes faster in a spiral notebook than you can on a tablet. But then, I'm old school."
So... we should all be using spiral notebooks? Not sure what you're getting at.
Keyboard with my iPad means I can do all the real document work I need to, at laptop speeds. iOS has a full version of Pages with good feature parity of the desktop version, so I can do all the professional fancy word documents and presentations that I need to.
Really, the biggest disadvantage to the iPad is the screen size, which is also why I don't do coding on it. All this talk about input functionality is missing the mark. Tablets have got the keyboards and they've got the software (at least on iOS side.)
"I replied on Andriod and I always get responses critizing grammar and sentence structure etc. A keyboard rocks for college students writing papers. However, for consuming time wasting tweets a cell phone is better."
I'm not sure the keyboard thing is a big issue. Like I said, you can couple a tablet with a keyboard. With my iPad, I have a little bluetooth keyboard for when I need it, and the advantage of more mobility when I don't. (Try carrying and using a calendar or email program on an open laptop while you're walking around, probably not going to end well.)
extremely unlikely. they have no experience producing hardware of any sort, which is why they turn to partners for everything (google tv, chromebook, and android phones).
They'd likely buyout a hardware company that had tons of experience. Someone like Motorola.
Oh wait.
because their OS keeps people using google services which keeps people using google search which is where they make 99.999% of their profits.
And producing their own hardware would make them even more money, and insure that there are plenty of Android devices on the market regardless of the whims of Samsung, in turn keeping people on Google services.
in all likelihood, they won't keep motorola around. expect it to be sold.
or, google can keep them around to make prototype devices, or some other niche that doesn't threaten other device makers. they can afford to do that.
Which is certainly an option, but again, like Samsung doesn't want to see their fate controlled by Google, I doubt Google wants to have their fate controlled by the device makers.
Computer labs are still pretty common because CS student deal with specialized machines. A university can't expect students to have a 16 core machine for multicore work, a Tesla for GPGPU programming, or a cluster for cluster work. Because CS is includes learning about the next big thing (at least it should be at a decent school), CS programs are always a step ahead of what the student usually has at home.
Now, that said, no, you don't need a 16 core box for introductory Java, and yes, when I graduated last year a lot of student still had laptops. But often the laptops were just used to remote into a more powerful lab machine. Lab machines are also generally required in CS programs because you don't want to have to deal with the Windows students when you're teaching a UNIX course (or walk the students through what IDE/compiler is best for their platform.) Labs add a degree of consistency to the program. Don't know how to setup your home machine? Great, you have a lab one with all the software already licensed.
Which is another good point. You can't really expect every student has MATLAB at home.
Define real work. With just a keyboard, a tablet is extremely productive for note taking, email, and organization, which is pretty much all most college students do. Tablets can wirelessly print these days too. It's a great form factor for carrying with you, without the huge bulk of a laptop bag.
For high end students like CS students? Dell is more correct, a PC would be first priority, followed by a tablet. You can't and shouldn't be doing technical work like coding on a tablet. Dell has a pretty narrow vision here of what tablets are capable of. And it's not hard to see a world in which high end students using campus provided labs for the big stuff, and tablets for everything else.
For someone who claims to not believe in tablets, Michael Dell seems to be trying hard to break into the market. Maybe his lack of understanding about tablets is why Dell is having problems getting into the market. Apple certainly sells a lot of them for a nonexistent market.
google exists to make a profit. sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly. business units within companies quite often speak to each other concerning larger business strategies.
I agree. Android alone as a product does not generate profit for Google, in fact it's likely a substantial loss. Sure, Google makes up for that in ads, but they could generate more profit making the hardware too.
If there wasn't profit in hardware, or the profits are "inconsequential", why is Samsung making so much money? If Google is in the business of making money, why are they giving away their operating system, and buying a hardware maker that is treading water? Google will either have to discontinue Motorola hardware and scrap them for the patents, or actually get Motorola into shape as a moneymaking operation. If they already have the patents they wanted to get, why keep a turkey like Motorola around in it's current state?
"But we do know that Google would have no choice but to acquiesce, otherwise Samsung could turn to Windows Phone (which would ruin Samsung's sales overnight), or they could fork the OS and make their own version - even though that would also result in their sales dropping."
Would it ruin Samsung's sales overnight? I think that's the question the article is posing. Is Samsung successful based of Android's brand, or is Android successful based off Samsung's brand? If Samsung changed their OS, would consumers even notice? Or would they just think their new phone has a different UI than their old one, but still plays Angry Birds?
I honestly don't hear many people saying they bought a Samsung because it runs Android. Most people just want a phone with email and web, and if it's not an iPhone they want, they'll go with whatever is on sale. That usually is a Samsung. Android often doesn't play into it.
Motorola is continuing to make Android hardware while owned by Google, yes.
Google is claiming that they are going to let Motorola's hardware development continue independently, but there are limits to that sort of reasoning. Motorola Mobility now exists to generate a profit for Google and is beholden to Google's shareholders. Every sale Motorola takes from Samsung is now attributable to Google. Heck, if Google hadn't bought Motorola, there is a somewhat decent chance that Motorola would be out of business eventually, and Samsung would have more of the market to itself.
Google saving Motorola probably has hurt Samsung's market share outlook.
"Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business."
Has this not happened already with the Motorola buyout? Google can claim it's operated independently, but it's still Google's mobile hardware arm. That alone has to piss off Samsung, and at the very least, make them look at a "plan b" for software.
"At that point it may not be "Android Powered by Google", but that seems to be what South Korea wants."
Well that's the point, isn't it? It's a question if Google refusing to bless devices not using Google search an abuse of monopoly power. Much like Microsoft refusing to bless (or giving bad terms) to manufacturers who wanted to bundle Netscape instead of IE.