They absolutely are doing it for money. Apple commands 87% of the smartphone market profit share with only around 18% of sales by count. That profit pool is greater than the profit pool of Google's entire advertising business.
Because it occupies the low-end, you can't charge enough for Android to make it worthwhile on its own. Even Samsung who leads Apple in numbers sold was recently said to be making more total profit on their component sales to Apple than on their own phone sales. If they were forced to make a choice between the two, the right business decision would be to give up their line of smartphones.
If Google abandoned Android OS development to the device makers while still maintaining their Android apps, and launched new devices with their own stack, they could make more money overall. They would fully control the stack and the user experience on their own device allowing them a chance to compete for that massive profit pool that Apple commands. Nobody could claim any arm-twisting because they would sever all of those relationships. And they would likely not lose a significant portion of their Android app market share because their apps are fully able to stand on their own just as Microsoft Office has stood on its own on Apple's computers all of these years.
Replacing Android would be silly. This sounds like a well-thought plan to launch a third OS into the market - one that has a better chance against iOS at the high end.
Develop a new OS, shift your devices to it starting with those furthest away from the smartphones, and when the time is right you split Android off, sell that division to a consortium of the Android device makers, and never look back. That time will likely be right before launching a new set of smartphones using whatever they decide to call Fuchsia and doing so without ever offering Fuchsia to any other company. This is why they must leave Android. They must do so to avoid breaking their own rules.
The key will be whether Fuchsia can achieve real world functional positives that can't be matched by iOS without a similar rewrite. It needs to do something like provide for a leap in power efficiency, security, memory efficiency, or AI integration.
The EU has attacked the little guy struggling to solidify an identity that can rise from the industry's gutters where even a few dollars of extra cost could kill a phone to compete. Without a solid identity, Android doesn't stand a chance to ever balance the profit equation and profit is all that matters to investors. Apple is laughing its way to the bank at this decision.
I personally think Fuchsia will not replace Android. It will remain exclusive to Google and they will use it as Apple has used iOS to attempt to attack Apple's monopoly. What Google is being taught is that the law protects true monopolies that keep it all in-house from coops trying to scale their walls.
Others do OK in numbers sold, but because Apple has monopolized the high end and over half of an iPhone's price is profit, Apple's profits for their portion of phone sales dominate the overall profits. They have a profit monopoly with 87% of all industry profits.
That is not Google's doing. That is the device manufacturer. This ruling is in favor of increasing that. It will not free you to take apps off. It will free the device manufacturer's to take bribes from companies other than Google to force other companies apps on the user. This is so that you can be forced by some device manufacturers to use Bing or some other competitor instead of Chrome, not to remove all app locks.
Exactly. I use a Pixel because my previous Samsung forced Samsung's crap apps, and I had to go to the Google product to get decently integrated software. If it doesn't all work nicely with the assistant, it is useless. Who wants to have to look at their phone to use it?
Well, you're one of few. Android has struggled to make inroads into real profit because Apple has a more solid ecosystem. As Android has increased the solidity of its ecosystem, that struggle has eased and high-end Android models are starting to compete though none yet commands Apple's profit percentages. If the ecosystem returns to its earlier fragmentation, the gains will be lost.
The market has made it clear that ecosystem is everything.
Google should split Android off and fully divest themselves of it. Then they should dig heavily into making a third OS from scratch for their own devices, support web apps that can run on all three, and truly go up against Apple. Android can never counter Apple if it can't control its ecosystem.
I'm surprised not to see Google in this deal. Walmart has been a vital partner to Google in opposing Amazon. There has been no mention of a change in that relationship. If that relationship is still intact, this is a strange menage-a-trois.
This isn't likely about datacenters. Walmart already has six mega-datacenters that haven't been online very long and many more smaller ones. Walmart is cloud-based and runs its own cloud with something like 80% of operations using their own datacenters. Their data is core to their business and they are ahead of most with their algorithms performing the pricing of their products on a store-by-store basis dependent on local sales data versus stock.
They have been criticized by investors for not selling their excess capacity and making it its own business like Amazon has. Perhaps this is part of what is going on. If they were using MS standard cloud services, it might make it easier to sell capacity.
But, I lean more towards the recent news about MS's behind-the-scenes efforts to develop a marketable checkout free retail capability. Perhaps they have talked Walmart into a partnership in that arena. The compute power necessary to provide that kind of service in stores the size of Walmart's would be massive. Like most such efforts, MS's is said to rely on cameras watching every person taking everything off of every shelf. It could only be done with on-site processing of a scale that would multiply Walmarts processing requirements. Any AI tech MS could provide to make that processing more efficient could have a huge impact on the expense.
Let's say Bezos decided he'd like to have $100 billion of cash in his bank account tomorrow - or even this year. So, he tries to sell his stock. It is unlikely that he could manage it even if he sold everything because Amazon stock would plummet. Perhaps he could get a significant fraction if he could quietly make some major deals for other stock and then convert that to cash.
Stock is entirely speculative. Much like the banks in the late 1920s and early 30s there is very little real value there. The illusion only works as long as there is no rush on the money.
I'd be willing to bet that Putin could get much more real value from his power than Bezos.
Not exactly. We can plan to not have to do anything - ever. Building codes and zoning should be planning for times on this scale and longer. When looking at 100 year scales, most costs should be avoidable by simply making sure that replacement infrastructure happening during that time take into account natural expectations. Coastal construction and infrastructure should be required to be flood and hurricane proof (or simply nonexistent).
Of course, we are very bad at avoiding known hazards too. We rebuilt New Orleans with few meaningful changes after Katrina and we rebuilt Earth City, Missouri after the '93 flood. In both cases, many were questioning the decisions but businesses that specialize in getting taxpayers to pay for their infrastructure ruled. We will pay even more for both the next time.
We are fundamentally incapable of long term planning. If we faced a scenario of nothing happening for 50 years and then everything happening at once, we'd be devastated. If things happen throughout the 50 years though, great. It is much easier to handle many little disasters than one big one when you can't plan. It also helps to keep the issue in the public consciousness.
Trump knows positions better than anybody else. Nobody knows more positions than Trump knows. Trump is the perfect man to teach TSA personnel the positions. Just ask Stormy.
That was a widespread argument when they broke up AT&T, and a true one. Telephony standards have been glacial in their changes since then. It is no surprise that they have found major vulnerabilities in even the most recent standard and are just living with them.
However, virtually nobody argues today that we'd be better off without the breakup.
In my opinion, the reason for breakup is partly to reduce the lobbying power, partly to open up the client side to all who want to develop for it, and partly to force a highly defined standard with default false flags indicating whether your posts can be sent to anyone other than friends, used for commercial purposes, or analyzed in any way whether it be for targeting ads or for research.
Note that with religion it prohibited congress from both respecting an establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise of it. With speech, it breaks that pattern and only stops congress from abridging the freedom of speech. It does not stop congress from supporting the freedom of speech. Why prohibit support of religion and not prohibit support of freedom of speech? Perhaps because they knew that freedom of speech would need the support of law? And who do laws target if not individuals and corporations?
A broad interpretation of first amendment rights would not support the allowance of individuals or corporations to block free speech which is what this does. It is as if someone has allowed the activation of a device in the public square to selectively block the transmission of sound from whoever hasn't paid the price to talk or whose agendas are not favored by those in control of the medium.
For the right of free speech to remain effective, it must be carried forward into the new medium that carries the majority of that speech. If it is relegated to the antiquity of the public square, it is dead.
Kavanaugh's interpretation is a twisting of words to match an agenda that is opposite of what the surface view of the words indicate. It allows complete and arbitrary regulation of speech by business and government, which is exactly what they want.
??? Android has the biggest share in gross dollars and quantity but Apple has the profit because more than half of their sales price per unit is profit.
Android does not come close to dominating the smartphone market in the way that Windows dominates the PC market.
I just don't see what good breaking those away would do. They are separate types of products. I don't think that either WhatsApp or Instagram is a monopoly. The Facebook app is close. Breaking the Facebook platform up would be nice, but if done, it should be done in a fashion that doesn't take away the united platform. When we broke up AT&T, everyone could still call each other.
How would you break up Facebook like a Bell? There aren't geographic regions with separate infrastructure here. One of the points is to be able to have connections from all over the world. I'm not saying it can't be done - it could work as a distributed database with data standards and required sharing between the resultant companies. But it will be less efficient if friends are on separate systems and much work would need to be done to mitigate the impact. It isn't a wave the magic wand and it is done thing.
Consumers are benefited by centralization of a sort. In order to have that without having a monopoly, standards must be forced. What good would phone system competition have been without a telephony standard?
We should create a distributed data standard for social networking and force all providers to start using it, open up their data to all other providers, and not be able to mandate any client. Build privacy control into the standard and force compliance. Users should be able to say that the providers have no right to do anything other than store the data and allow normal clients access to it in the way the standard describes.
The free market will then work in the way that it should and take care of the monopoly aspects.
I've had a Samsung during the S5 generation and hated that I couldn't get rid of their crap apps and put Google apps on. I now have a Pixel XL, and it is much nicer without the Samsung junk. I guess I could have rooted the Samsung and put Google on, but why should I have to do that?
Google started forcing the manufacturers to be more standard because Android is not a monopoly - competition with Apple forced it. In terms of what matters, profit, not gross, Apple is so far out in front that Android could be considered as always fighting for survival. Apple is always a threat. Android badly needed a more unified front and Google has been answering that need.
At this point, bringing back the fragmentation would either kill the gains that Android has made so that Apple never has a true competitor or force Google to just go heavy into the phone business themselves and encourage the other Android suppliers to just go their own way. Neither of those outcomes would be good for the consumer.
Cool. I knew of cleaning efforts but not actual efforts to use it as fuel like the second. Still, would love to see something like this on full-scale cargo vessels.
What we really need is ships that extract plastic from the water and use that. Shipping routes might have to change a bit to actually go through the crap but there is far more than enough to power all ships in the world. It would be nice if they could simultaneously capture the CO2.
I talk to bots constantly. Almost all businesses of any size today use them. Given that we're already there, making them better and more helpful would be very nice.
Slashdot Mirror
They absolutely are doing it for money. Apple commands 87% of the smartphone market profit share with only around 18% of sales by count. That profit pool is greater than the profit pool of Google's entire advertising business.
Because it occupies the low-end, you can't charge enough for Android to make it worthwhile on its own. Even Samsung who leads Apple in numbers sold was recently said to be making more total profit on their component sales to Apple than on their own phone sales. If they were forced to make a choice between the two, the right business decision would be to give up their line of smartphones.
If Google abandoned Android OS development to the device makers while still maintaining their Android apps, and launched new devices with their own stack, they could make more money overall. They would fully control the stack and the user experience on their own device allowing them a chance to compete for that massive profit pool that Apple commands. Nobody could claim any arm-twisting because they would sever all of those relationships. And they would likely not lose a significant portion of their Android app market share because their apps are fully able to stand on their own just as Microsoft Office has stood on its own on Apple's computers all of these years.
Replacing Android would be silly. This sounds like a well-thought plan to launch a third OS into the market - one that has a better chance against iOS at the high end.
Develop a new OS, shift your devices to it starting with those furthest away from the smartphones, and when the time is right you split Android off, sell that division to a consortium of the Android device makers, and never look back. That time will likely be right before launching a new set of smartphones using whatever they decide to call Fuchsia and doing so without ever offering Fuchsia to any other company. This is why they must leave Android. They must do so to avoid breaking their own rules.
The key will be whether Fuchsia can achieve real world functional positives that can't be matched by iOS without a similar rewrite. It needs to do something like provide for a leap in power efficiency, security, memory efficiency, or AI integration.
Apple effectively does all of these things and monopolizes on the order of 87% of the industry's profit.
The EU has attacked the little guy struggling to solidify an identity that can rise from the industry's gutters where even a few dollars of extra cost could kill a phone to compete. Without a solid identity, Android doesn't stand a chance to ever balance the profit equation and profit is all that matters to investors. Apple is laughing its way to the bank at this decision.
I personally think Fuchsia will not replace Android. It will remain exclusive to Google and they will use it as Apple has used iOS to attempt to attack Apple's monopoly. What Google is being taught is that the law protects true monopolies that keep it all in-house from coops trying to scale their walls.
Others do OK in numbers sold, but because Apple has monopolized the high end and over half of an iPhone's price is profit, Apple's profits for their portion of phone sales dominate the overall profits. They have a profit monopoly with 87% of all industry profits.
Mobile phones may be. Smart phones are not. There are still plenty of people that get along with simple mobile phones.
That is not Google's doing. That is the device manufacturer. This ruling is in favor of increasing that. It will not free you to take apps off. It will free the device manufacturer's to take bribes from companies other than Google to force other companies apps on the user. This is so that you can be forced by some device manufacturers to use Bing or some other competitor instead of Chrome, not to remove all app locks.
Exactly. I use a Pixel because my previous Samsung forced Samsung's crap apps, and I had to go to the Google product to get decently integrated software. If it doesn't all work nicely with the assistant, it is useless. Who wants to have to look at their phone to use it?
Well, you're one of few. Android has struggled to make inroads into real profit because Apple has a more solid ecosystem. As Android has increased the solidity of its ecosystem, that struggle has eased and high-end Android models are starting to compete though none yet commands Apple's profit percentages. If the ecosystem returns to its earlier fragmentation, the gains will be lost.
The market has made it clear that ecosystem is everything.
Google should split Android off and fully divest themselves of it. Then they should dig heavily into making a third OS from scratch for their own devices, support web apps that can run on all three, and truly go up against Apple. Android can never counter Apple if it can't control its ecosystem.
I'm surprised not to see Google in this deal. Walmart has been a vital partner to Google in opposing Amazon. There has been no mention of a change in that relationship. If that relationship is still intact, this is a strange menage-a-trois.
This isn't likely about datacenters. Walmart already has six mega-datacenters that haven't been online very long and many more smaller ones. Walmart is cloud-based and runs its own cloud with something like 80% of operations using their own datacenters. Their data is core to their business and they are ahead of most with their algorithms performing the pricing of their products on a store-by-store basis dependent on local sales data versus stock.
They have been criticized by investors for not selling their excess capacity and making it its own business like Amazon has. Perhaps this is part of what is going on. If they were using MS standard cloud services, it might make it easier to sell capacity.
But, I lean more towards the recent news about MS's behind-the-scenes efforts to develop a marketable checkout free retail capability. Perhaps they have talked Walmart into a partnership in that arena. The compute power necessary to provide that kind of service in stores the size of Walmart's would be massive. Like most such efforts, MS's is said to rely on cameras watching every person taking everything off of every shelf. It could only be done with on-site processing of a scale that would multiply Walmarts processing requirements. Any AI tech MS could provide to make that processing more efficient could have a huge impact on the expense.
Let's say Bezos decided he'd like to have $100 billion of cash in his bank account tomorrow - or even this year. So, he tries to sell his stock. It is unlikely that he could manage it even if he sold everything because Amazon stock would plummet. Perhaps he could get a significant fraction if he could quietly make some major deals for other stock and then convert that to cash.
Stock is entirely speculative. Much like the banks in the late 1920s and early 30s there is very little real value there. The illusion only works as long as there is no rush on the money.
I'd be willing to bet that Putin could get much more real value from his power than Bezos.
Not exactly. We can plan to not have to do anything - ever. Building codes and zoning should be planning for times on this scale and longer. When looking at 100 year scales, most costs should be avoidable by simply making sure that replacement infrastructure happening during that time take into account natural expectations. Coastal construction and infrastructure should be required to be flood and hurricane proof (or simply nonexistent).
Of course, we are very bad at avoiding known hazards too. We rebuilt New Orleans with few meaningful changes after Katrina and we rebuilt Earth City, Missouri after the '93 flood. In both cases, many were questioning the decisions but businesses that specialize in getting taxpayers to pay for their infrastructure ruled. We will pay even more for both the next time.
We are fundamentally incapable of long term planning. If we faced a scenario of nothing happening for 50 years and then everything happening at once, we'd be devastated. If things happen throughout the 50 years though, great. It is much easier to handle many little disasters than one big one when you can't plan. It also helps to keep the issue in the public consciousness.
Trump knows positions better than anybody else. Nobody knows more positions than Trump knows. Trump is the perfect man to teach TSA personnel the positions. Just ask Stormy.
That was a widespread argument when they broke up AT&T, and a true one. Telephony standards have been glacial in their changes since then. It is no surprise that they have found major vulnerabilities in even the most recent standard and are just living with them.
However, virtually nobody argues today that we'd be better off without the breakup.
In my opinion, the reason for breakup is partly to reduce the lobbying power, partly to open up the client side to all who want to develop for it, and partly to force a highly defined standard with default false flags indicating whether your posts can be sent to anyone other than friends, used for commercial purposes, or analyzed in any way whether it be for targeting ads or for research.
Note that with religion it prohibited congress from both respecting an establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise of it. With speech, it breaks that pattern and only stops congress from abridging the freedom of speech. It does not stop congress from supporting the freedom of speech. Why prohibit support of religion and not prohibit support of freedom of speech? Perhaps because they knew that freedom of speech would need the support of law? And who do laws target if not individuals and corporations?
A broad interpretation of first amendment rights would not support the allowance of individuals or corporations to block free speech which is what this does. It is as if someone has allowed the activation of a device in the public square to selectively block the transmission of sound from whoever hasn't paid the price to talk or whose agendas are not favored by those in control of the medium.
For the right of free speech to remain effective, it must be carried forward into the new medium that carries the majority of that speech. If it is relegated to the antiquity of the public square, it is dead.
Kavanaugh's interpretation is a twisting of words to match an agenda that is opposite of what the surface view of the words indicate. It allows complete and arbitrary regulation of speech by business and government, which is exactly what they want.
??? Android has the biggest share in gross dollars and quantity but Apple has the profit because more than half of their sales price per unit is profit.
Android does not come close to dominating the smartphone market in the way that Windows dominates the PC market.
I just don't see what good breaking those away would do. They are separate types of products. I don't think that either WhatsApp or Instagram is a monopoly. The Facebook app is close. Breaking the Facebook platform up would be nice, but if done, it should be done in a fashion that doesn't take away the united platform. When we broke up AT&T, everyone could still call each other.
How would you break up Facebook like a Bell? There aren't geographic regions with separate infrastructure here. One of the points is to be able to have connections from all over the world. I'm not saying it can't be done - it could work as a distributed database with data standards and required sharing between the resultant companies. But it will be less efficient if friends are on separate systems and much work would need to be done to mitigate the impact. It isn't a wave the magic wand and it is done thing.
Consumers are benefited by centralization of a sort. In order to have that without having a monopoly, standards must be forced. What good would phone system competition have been without a telephony standard?
We should create a distributed data standard for social networking and force all providers to start using it, open up their data to all other providers, and not be able to mandate any client. Build privacy control into the standard and force compliance. Users should be able to say that the providers have no right to do anything other than store the data and allow normal clients access to it in the way the standard describes.
The free market will then work in the way that it should and take care of the monopoly aspects.
I've had a Samsung during the S5 generation and hated that I couldn't get rid of their crap apps and put Google apps on. I now have a Pixel XL, and it is much nicer without the Samsung junk. I guess I could have rooted the Samsung and put Google on, but why should I have to do that?
Google started forcing the manufacturers to be more standard because Android is not a monopoly - competition with Apple forced it. In terms of what matters, profit, not gross, Apple is so far out in front that Android could be considered as always fighting for survival. Apple is always a threat. Android badly needed a more unified front and Google has been answering that need.
At this point, bringing back the fragmentation would either kill the gains that Android has made so that Apple never has a true competitor or force Google to just go heavy into the phone business themselves and encourage the other Android suppliers to just go their own way. Neither of those outcomes would be good for the consumer.
Cool. I knew of cleaning efforts but not actual efforts to use it as fuel like the second. Still, would love to see something like this on full-scale cargo vessels.
What we really need is ships that extract plastic from the water and use that. Shipping routes might have to change a bit to actually go through the crap but there is far more than enough to power all ships in the world. It would be nice if they could simultaneously capture the CO2.
That is a point. This is way better and it keeps the money in country.
I talk to bots constantly. Almost all businesses of any size today use them. Given that we're already there, making them better and more helpful would be very nice.