or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola hedging Android bet with new web-based OS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Motorola hedging Android bet with new web-based OS - Page 2

post #41 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

Enjoyed the commentary.

I have a colleague who is so disparaging about the iPad and iOS, which I believe he hasn't yet even tried, that I have thought about buying him an iPad and saying, 'try this, write an honest commentary on it and you can keep it, otherwise give it back'. Either way I cannot lose and who knows, he might just learn something. \ (The risk of course is that his honest commentary might be equally disparaging. That's a risk I'm up for!)

Long time Mac users are used to having friends/family/colleagues who malign the Mac and Apple in general without ever having used any of Apple's product. They all seem to have a friend of a friend of a friend who runs a big IT department who has said that "nobody who is serious about computing uses a Mac".

... and so it goes with iOS.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #42 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Want to wallow in some more Android fan misery?

HTC locks down Incredible S against custom ROMs too, starts a fight with its best friends

If they weren't such intolerable geeks, I would feel sorry for them. Nah...scratch.



Whatever happened to:
Code:

mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make




Android is only "open" if you are HTC or Moto or Samsung.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #43 of 105
Only several can survive, not many. Every company who has the idea of doing their own OS won't be successful. It's not easy. As Nokia's CEO said it best: "it's now a battle of ecosystems". It's going to turn into much more of a console war in the future, and yet Google are MS aren't really making their own hardware. It's sort of confusing.

It's easy to predict this, but it's impossible to know how it will pan out over the next 5 - 10 years in the mobile-phone/mobile-mini-computer space. If anything, the fact that Apple are taking all the money, even though they won't have all the market-share, perhaps that will cloud the judgement of the other guys, and they'll all, well a few of them will, perhaps take big gambles on their own ecosystems that will run their companies into the ground.

It's not clear how the future will look in this space by any means.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #44 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Long time Mac users are used to having friends/family/colleagues who malign the Mac and Apple in general without ever having used any of Apple's product. They all seem to have a friend of a friend of a friend who runs a big IT department who has said that "nobody who is serious about computing uses a Mac".

... and so it goes with iOS.

You are so right. Now they all parrot "I'd never buy an Apple product because it has a walled garden" although when pressed they have no clue what this means.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #45 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Only several can survive, not many. Every company who has the idea of doing their own OS won't be successful. It's not easy. As Nokia's CEO said it best: "it's now a battle of ecosystems". It's going to turn into much more of a console war in the future, and yet Google are MS aren't really making their own hardware. It's sort of confusing.

It's easy to predict this, but it's impossible to know how it will pan out over the next 5 - 10 years in the mobile-phone/mobile-mini-computer space. If anything, the fact that Apple are taking all the money, even though they won't have all the market-share, perhaps that will cloud the judgement of the other guys, and they'll all, well a few of them will, perhaps take big gambles on their own ecosystems that will run their companies into the ground.

It's not clear how the future will look in this space by any means.

I agree.

Another interesting angle is that Amazon actually has all the ecosystem, store and infrastructure stuff to be a "second Apple" in this space, but probably not the hardware chops. Some hardware company might try to buy Amazon, or Amazon might start buying up small hardware shops in order to compete.

Very confusing indeed, but exciting too.
post #46 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Palm made every possible mistake they could have and turned themselves into something very much not like a company that is, really serious about software should make [its] own hardware.

Licensing clones (a mistake that Apple briefly made but fortunately pulled back from), splitting into separate software and hardware companies, and so on. The worst possible decisions on practically everything, Palm killed itself by not following that advice.

Yeah, they went from deeply integrated to the exact opposite.

I think it's kind of funny that their last big "save the company product" (the folio), which was universally panned, was in one sense the same idea as the iPad, which is hugely successful. The product niche was spot on, but the product itself was not.
post #47 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Long time Mac users are used to having friends/family/colleagues who malign the Mac and Apple in general without ever having used any of Apple's product. They all seem to have a friend of a friend of a friend who runs a big IT department who has said that "nobody who is serious about computing uses a Mac".

... and so it goes with iOS.

I had a friend who rejected everything Apple to the point she even refused to go the the Apple Movie Trailers website! She eventually bought into the Apple ecosystem with an iPod touch a couple years ago. Last week she bought a barely-used first generation iPad. Now I have trouble reaching her on the phone because she's glued to her new tablet.

Another friend is in IT. Never had anything nice to say about anything Apple (unless it was about his wife's AAPL stock of course). His wife's a Mac person. He got her an iPad for Christmas, which raised his eyebrows a bit. She got him an iPod touch last month. Now, he's totally hooked. Their transformation genuinely amuses me.

"Be aware of wonder." ~ Robert Fulghum

Reply

"Be aware of wonder." ~ Robert Fulghum

Reply
post #48 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

The first reason is glaringly obvious. The Oracle lawsuit is the death knell for Android. It's an airtight case, with legal precedent and the Android source code itself as evidence. Microsoft already lost their battle to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java. They paid Sun $20 million back in 2001, and were forced to take their JVM off the market.

Now Google will lose that same battle. They have blatantly copied and attempted to profit from the work the Java team has done. Stealing, then giving away software for free isn't "open" in the sense Rubin was hoping to imply.

And there's another reason. Google has Microsoft-like poor taste and judgement when designing user experiences. (Need I mention the short-lived Google TV as an example?) Google, like Microsoft before it, figured that users will put up with terrible UIs and ugly designs, but for very different reasons. Users put up with Windows' hideous convolutions because they had no choice. Corporate IT put the pee cee on their desk at work and said "Our way or the highway."

Now, Android users put up with the generic-aisle look and feel because, oh well, it's free. But the problem runs far deeper than just a cheesy interface. The whole infrastructure is cheesy. The Android market is full of malware and porn, and Google hasn't provided a real alternative to iTunes yet (and likely never will.) Why? Why does Google seemingly not care about the user experience?

The answer is simple. The only user experience Google actually cares about is the AdMob ads delivered to users. Google's real customers are their advertisers. Google makes 96% of their profits from ads. That's why Android is free. To maximize the number of eyeballs on AdMob ads. And that's why Google has promiscuously done deals with every Tom, Dick, and Harry generic hardware maker, including Motorola. To maximize the number of eyeballs on AdMob ads. Let the manufacturers fight over tiny margins. Let them push each other off the low-price cliff. Let them eat cake.

Motorola bought Azingo, but all they get is an OS development team. They'll be bringing a newborn baby OS to a superb user experience plus deep infrastructure fight. Against Apple, a deeply entrenched, fast-moving, hardened veteran and undisputed champ of the user experience battle. Good luck Moto. You're gonna need it.

But, on the contrary they might make some profit now because they have some sort of control over it's system.But, Motorola has long history of writing incredibly BAD software.

Like what the fandorado will say putting all the eggs in one basket Moto is in the mercy of google, you remove android you loose your top line.
post #49 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaCameron View Post

I had a friend who rejected everything Apple to the point she even refused to go the the Apple Movie Trailers website! She eventually bought into the Apple ecosystem with an iPod touch a couple years ago. Last week she bought a barely-used first generation iPad. Now I have trouble reaching her on the phone because she's glued to her new tablet.

Another friend is in IT. Never had anything nice to say about anything Apple (unless it was about his wife's AAPL stock of course). His wife's a Mac person. He got her an iPad for Christmas, which raised his eyebrows a bit. She got him an iPod touch last month. Now, he's totally hooked. Their transformation genuinely amuses me.

Actually I was there myself... I disliked anything related to Mac's and working as a system administrator I got hooked on Linux for long time which I still use to some extend.
Last year I got myself a 13 inch macbook pro and I love it. I take it everywhere I go and I use its unix shell for all the work I did before from my Linux Dell Laptop, plus the great battery life and sturdy casing.

Some of my coworkers give me the eyes but while they drag their power adapter and look for a power extension I am already logged into multiple server and am doing my daily chores
post #50 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

...... I have thought about buying him an iPad and saying, "try this, write an honest commentary on it and you can keep it," .....[I]'.

At the risk of sounding like a donkey ..... pick me, pick me, pick me!
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #51 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

"The report noted that Motorola's efforts to develop an alternative to Android may relate to the uncertainty of Oracle's ongoing patent and copyright claims against Google's mobile operating system, which is modeled upon aspects of Java ME."

FUD...

If thats the case, then why doesn't Google extinguish all the FUD by indemnifying its licence partners?

What Google has done here is amazing. They have basically created this patent time bomb, and told others to pick it up. For FREE! Let their partners handle all the legal risks, while they continue minting money off the Google Ads Android generates.

I love how MOT, HTC, etc. simply fell for it.
post #52 of 105
informationweek says, "Over the past nine months, Motorola has been hiring engineering talent"

They must have some low hiring standards.
They couldn't even do a decent job of porting Honeycomb onto the Xoom, what's the chances that they'll be able to write a decent OS themselves...LOL
post #53 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroyboredom View Post

Are you referring to the Information Week article? Or you just trolling? I didn't see at any point in the article the author mention this?

There were actually two articles by Information weekly that made up this whole inaccurate assumption. And using the term "article" is a stretch because they were really opinion pieces with not a single shred of evidence. You might know that if you actually took the time to check the source of this POS article.
post #54 of 105
Let's take a look at the evolution of a highly complex product.

In the beginning, the auto industry consisted of independent engine builders, chassis builders and coach builders. Chassis builders would deliver an engine mounted on a chassis to the coach builders who would build a finished body on the chassis and deliver it to the customer.

But as the market grew, the auto companies got bigger, and competition expanded, the auto companies figured out that you build a better car by integrating the design and construction of the engine, chassis and body as tightly as possible. Independent engine, chassis and coach builders disappeared, and not only that, separate chassis and body design and production lines disappeared as well. The end result is today's modern car where one company builds the engine and installs it in its own integrated body and chassis (i.e. unibody).

So Google is an independent chassis-and-engine builder who wants to supply the various coach builders (handset and tablet mfrs). This is a dead model. For any complex product, when the market gets big enough, and the competition vicious enough, integrated design and manufacturing will be the only way to survive. It requires more capital and more technical knowhow but it will always yield a better product.

Jobs figured this out long, long ago, HP about a year ago, and Motorola seems to have just had its come-to-Jesus moment. Google is building a business around Android that is set up for the past. There is just no way, in a complex product like smart phones and tablets, that separately designed OS and device will be able to keep up with an integrated producer firing on all cylinders.

Android will become the smartphone OS of choice for the third world. Basically they will be used by East Asian (mostly Chinese) no-name brands who will sell cheap smart phones to third world consumers. That's already how most PCs for the third world are supplied.

Anyone who asks what about DOS-Windows: I said complex product, large market and competition. DOS-Windows had insignificant competition thanks to the monopoly IBM gifted to Microsoft. But it only postponed the inevitable.
post #55 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphoria View Post

I use its unix shell for all the work I did before from my Linux Dell Laptop

Get DTerm from the Mac App Store. Your life will be transformed!
post #56 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Let their partners handle all the legal risks, while they continue minting money off the Google Ads Android generates.

I love how MOT, HTC, etc. simply fell for it.

Necessity may have mothered invention, but desperation is the baby momma that birthed shortsightedness.
post #57 of 105
Jobs told everyone Apple's formula for success. "make the hardware and the software!"

HP is following his advice, as is RIM and now Motorola. Just because MS failed at it multiple times doesn't mean everyone will!

Best
post #58 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Get DTerm from the Mac App Store. Your life will be transformed!

Noted.

Thanks!
post #59 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

HP is following his advice, as is RIM and now Motorola. Just because MS failed at it multiple times doesn't mean everyone will!

Actually, MS is doing pretty well with the XBox. Although they failed with the Zune, the primary reason was that they were too late, since they wasted time trying the old ways with their PlayForSure initiatives.

Still, the Zune continues to benefit them, because its that experience which they based their WP7 UI around. If MS creates its own device on WP7 (which is what the Nokia deal I think might effectively be), they will be very competitive.
post #60 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Somebody's got a bad case of Apple envy...and it's Motorola!

Jack In the Box became big by doing one thing, looking at where McDonalds places their stores and placing within the same block. They let McDonalds do all the research. If Motorola is smart they will watch what Apple does and replicate what works, also learn from their past mistakes and not do it. Then figure out, like Apple does, what is the next big thing and beat them to it. There is no way they will win by simply copying what Apple does a year later, or letting someone else control the heart of their OS.
post #61 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Let the fragmentation begin! What is kind of funny is that for decades Apple was the only major hardware reseller owning its own OS. The conventional wisdom has been better to use Microsoft but build your own box. For a while it was looking like Google had supplanted the MS role. Now all of a sudden its hip to have your own OS. If this trend continues Apple's dominance will only grow IMO.

Well the hardware manufacturers know how that played out. Basically because of the Wintel monopoly, they all became commoditized. Apple is the only company that has substantially differentiated it's computers from other manufacturers and is able to earn a much higher margin on all its computers as a result. The Wintel monopoly worked out great for Microsoft and Intel, but not for everybody else. This time around all the hardware makers are trying to avoid falling into the same trap as before.
post #62 of 105
Poor analysis. Really? Just pull some random comment from some random "android fanboy" to back your argument?

Terrible.

I find the situation comical to say the least. None of these hardware companies could come up with a successful OS. And certainly none of them could iterate fast enough to have a fighting chance. Particularly against Apple. Heck, Nokia essentially owned it's own OS and it couldn't mount a successful fight against Apple. Android is what gave them a realistic fighting chance at survival.

That said, if they think it's in their best interests to hedge their bets, they should certainly do that. But I really wonder, who in their right mind would buy a phone with a proprietary OS from Motorola or Samsung or HTC when people are already complaining about the UI skins they put on their Android handsets.

And if they think Android is commoditizing their products, they should consider the alternative: Windows Phone 7....
post #63 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radjin View Post

Jack In the Box became big by doing one thing, looking at where McDonalds places their stores and placing within the same block. They let McDonalds do all the research. If Motorola is smart they will watch what Apple does and replicate what works, also learn from their past mistakes and not do it. Then figure out, like Apple does, what is the next big thing and beat them to it. There is no way they will win by simply copying what Apple does a year later, or letting someone else control the heart of their OS.

2010 Revenues:

Jack in the Box: $2.3 Billion, McDonalds: $24.06

If Motorola is content with business a tenth of Apple's then I suppose emulating Jack in the Box is the thing to do.

Also, to "figure out, like Apple does, what is the next big thing and beat them to it" is what every Apple competitor has been trying to do but can't. As great business advise goes, the only thing that could top that is "find a way to raise your revenues while lowering your costs". :-)
post #64 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I think it's kind of funny that their last big "save the company product" (the folio), which was universally panned, was in one sense the same idea as the iPad, which is hugely successful. The product niche was spot on, but the product itself was not.

You mean 'Foleo'?

I really believe Palm could have hit it right if Foleo was launched, Foleo indeed was a niche product. I say it's kinda half netbook and, like you said there; half tablet. Everybody back then was like saying, "Wha, what's that? I don't think I'll ever need one." But that was also what people were saying when netbook started to pop up, then the same thing happened when Steve Jobs introduced the iPad.

We all are agree on one thing though, that Palm execs (back then) made too many mistake on important decisions. Too bad..
post #65 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Actually, MS is doing pretty well with the XBox. Although they failed with the Zune, the primary reason was that they were too late, since they wasted time trying the old ways with their PlayForSure initiatives.

Still, the Zune continues to benefit them, because its that experience which they based their WP7 UI around. If MS creates its own device on WP7 (which is what the Nokia deal I think might effectively be), they will be very competitive.

I wonder if MS can have a real success if they make Zune to be more like Apple's iTunes, for desktop/laptop, and the WP7 is like iPhone/iPod touch. Huh, this could actually work. But then again, it's all just a little game of catching up with Apple, not exactly trying to get ahead with new innovations..
post #66 of 105
Thanks to SockRolid and addicted44 for spot on posting about Google's
business model for Android. You guys free me up to concentrate on
making wise cracks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

...
Android will become the smartphone OS of choice for the third world. Basically they will be used by East Asian (mostly Chinese) no-name brands who will sell cheap smart phones to third world consumers. That's already how most PCs for the third world are supplied.
...

If this turns out to be the case, will Google receive enough ad revenue (considering the viewing
demographic) to justify continuing to develop Android?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Necessity may have mothered invention, but desperation is the baby momma that birthed shortsightedness.

and Eric Schmidt is the baby daddy.
post #67 of 105
insult removed
post #68 of 105
Let's suppose Motorola develops their own mobile OS, and then goes belly-up, at least in the phone business. You know the Fandroids are going to attribute their failure to their abandonment of the True Religion. My question is, do you think other makes will believe that and act accordingly?
post #69 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Another idiot makes a complete idiot of himself, all over his misunderstanding of what open means. ROFL

Yeah, because "open" doesn't mean anything. The only "open" phones would be Freerunners that Stallman assembles in his Mom's basement out of components gleaned from dumpsters and hands out for free. What percentage of the market is that again?
post #70 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

The first reason is glaringly obvious. The Oracle lawsuit is the death knell for Android. It's an airtight case, with legal precedent and the Android source code itself as evidence. Microsoft already lost their battle to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java. They paid Sun $20 million back in 2001, and were forced to take their JVM off the market.

Now Google will lose that same battle. They have blatantly copied and attempted to profit from the work the Java team has done. Stealing, then giving away software for free isn't "open" in the sense Rubin was hoping to imply.

And there's another reason. Google has Microsoft-like poor taste and judgement when designing user experiences. (Need I mention the short-lived Google TV as an example?) Google, like Microsoft before it, figured that users will put up with terrible UIs and ugly designs, but for very different reasons. Users put up with Windows' hideous convolutions because they had no choice. Corporate IT put the pee cee on their desk at work and said "Our way or the highway."

Now, Android users put up with the generic-aisle look and feel because, oh well, it's free. But the problem runs far deeper than just a cheesy interface. The whole infrastructure is cheesy. The Android market is full of malware and porn, and Google hasn't provided a real alternative to iTunes yet (and likely never will.) Why? Why does Google seemingly not care about the user experience?

The answer is simple. The only user experience Google actually cares about is the AdMob ads delivered to users. Google's real customers are their advertisers. Google makes 96% of their profits from ads. That's why Android is free. To maximize the number of eyeballs on AdMob ads. And that's why Google has promiscuously done deals with every Tom, Dick, and Harry generic hardware maker, including Motorola. To maximize the number of eyeballs on AdMob ads. Let the manufacturers fight over tiny margins. Let them push each other off the low-price cliff. Let them eat cake.

Motorola bought Azingo, but all they get is an OS development team. They'll be bringing a newborn baby OS to a superb user experience plus deep infrastructure fight. Against Apple, a deeply entrenched, fast-moving, hardened veteran and undisputed champ of the user experience battle. Good luck Moto. You're gonna need it.

Excellent analysis!
post #71 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Yeah, because "open" doesn't mean anything. The only "open" phones would be Freerunners that Stallman assembles in his Mom's basement out of components gleaned from dumpsters and hands out for free. What percentage of the market is that again?

In the "open" folks' defense, I think Apple is far too "closed" (whatever that may mean). I think the Walled Garden approach for the iPhone Apps was a great idea when the App Store was released. Lets not forget, that until that point, the idea of a phone, for which anyone could develop software, and sell to others, was rather niche (basically, just a few WinMo and Palm users, but more importantly, none of those phones allowed the extent of computing Apple did). So it was a great idea to shepherd customers carefully through this new paradigm.

Now that App capabilities are a base feature in phones, and most people are comfortable with them, it makes a lot more sense for Apple to offer alternatives to the Walled Garden. Especially with the iPad, which people treat as a computer alternative.

That being said, I understand Apple's motivation. Unlike the nonsensical "its so they can mint money off the 30%" (yeah right, you mean the <1% of their revenues, and far less proportion of profits is going to be what Apple sacrifices the devices that make 95+% of their profits/revenues with), its because Apple thinks this is best for the vast majority of their users. I know Apple is on my (as a consumer, not as a developer) side. I also like the 30% cut Apple takes, because it gives them an incentive to promote my selling apps (unlike Twitter, which has no incentive to support 3rd party devs, which is why it is now essentially cutting them off). The same is not true at all of Google, whose incentives lie with promoting their real customers (advertisers) interest.

Which is why Apple does not provide user data to publishers, but Google is more than willing to do so.

Apple's interests are aligned with the people who purchase their products. Google's aren't. Which is why I prefer the former. I will seriously take a look at HP's WebOS based products, because of the same interest alignment, but not consider MS's WP7, because once again, their interests align with the handset manufacturers', not mine.
post #72 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Let's suppose Motorola develops their own mobile OS, and then goes belly-up, at least in the phone business. You know the Fandroids are going to attribute their failure to their abandonment of the True Religion.

And why not?

Android saved Motorola from going under. Their last big hit before the Droid was the RAZR. So I don't see how abandoning Android will do much good for them.

I can appreciate Apple's philosophy. But the truth of the matter is that not every hardware OEM is capable of good software. And in that stretch of time between the iPhone and Android really taking off, several were floundering because they couldn't come up a decent OS to compete with iOS.

Again, just look at Nokia. Sure there was the Symbian foundation. But in essence, Symbian was managed by Nokia. What good did it do for them? Or for that matter, what good did WebOS do for Palm. Integrated is all well and good....if you have the ability to manage an integrated company. Apple does. The rest I'm not sure....

And this is why they should let Google (or MS) manage their OS development and ecosystem development for them. And that's the second part of the equation people seem to forget. There's all of Google's other services (mail, maps, search, etc.). Google is working on launching services like Google Music. And they've launched Google Books. These are alternatives to iTunes. They are slowly building an ecosystem that's competitive with the iUniverse. I fail to see what Motorola or anybody else will pull off merely building an OS, without a decent ecosystem to go with it.

So yes, if they go under, because they've moved away from Android, their distraction with OS development should be blamed. And this should be worrisome. If OEMs are successful at it, great. If they aren't, we'll be in trouble as they go under and competition is reduced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

My question is, do you think other makes will believe that and act accordingly?

Some already do. Samsung and Bada or HTC with Brew. But in both those cases, they haven't sought to develop those platforms as full fledged alternatives to Android. Good luck to them. There's a lot at stake....for them and us consumers.
post #73 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

In the "open" folks' defense, I think Apple is far too "closed" (whatever that may mean). I think the Walled Garden approach for the iPhone Apps was a great idea when the App Store was released. Lets not forget, that until that point, the idea of a phone, for which anyone could develop software, and sell to others, was rather niche (basically, just a few WinMo and Palm users, but more importantly, none of those phones allowed the extent of computing Apple did). So it was a great idea to shepherd customers carefully through this new paradigm.

Now that App capabilities are a base feature in phones, and most people are comfortable with them, it makes a lot more sense for Apple to offer alternatives to the Walled Garden. Especially with the iPad, which people treat as a computer alternative.

That being said, I understand Apple's motivation. Unlike the nonsensical "its so they can mint money off the 30%" (yeah right, you mean the <1% of their revenues, and far less proportion of profits is going to be what Apple sacrifices the devices that make 95+% of their profits/revenues with), its because Apple thinks this is best for the vast majority of their users. I know Apple is on my (as a consumer, not as a developer) side. I also like the 30% cut Apple takes, because it gives them an incentive to promote my selling apps (unlike Twitter, which has no incentive to support 3rd party devs, which is why it is now essentially cutting them off). The same is not true at all of Google, whose incentives lie with promoting their real customers (advertisers) interest.

Which is why Apple does not provide user data to publishers, but Google is more than willing to do so.

Apple's interests are aligned with the people who purchase their products. Google's aren't. Which is why I prefer the former. I will seriously take a look at HP's WebOS based products, because of the same interest alignment, but not consider MS's WP7, because once again, their interests align with the handset manufacturers', not mine.

I basically agree with everything you said. I do think with phones, reliability is much more important than with general-purpose computers, so it's understandable that Apple started out very conservative in what they allowed people to do with their phones. (If somebody dies because you couldn't call an ambulance on your iPhone, who do you think is going to get suedand crucified in the media?)

That being said, it's early days yet. It looks like with the Mac App Store and Lion that OS X is going to become more like iOS. Maybe iOS will eventually become more like OS X as well? Time will tell.
post #74 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

In the "open" folks' defense, I think Apple is far too "closed" (whatever that may mean). I think the Walled Garden approach for the iPhone Apps was a great idea when the App Store was released. Lets not forget, that until that point, the idea of a phone, for which anyone could develop software, and sell to others, was rather niche (basically, just a few WinMo and Palm users, but more importantly, none of those phones allowed the extent of computing Apple did). So it was a great idea to shepherd customers carefully through this new paradigm.

The thing I don't get as an Android user is why Google doesn't exhibit more control over the Android Market (maybe not to same level of anal retentiveness as the App Store). After all, with Android you can download apps from other sources. So a rejection from the Android Market is not the end of the world for a developer. There are alternative avenues for distribution.

I suspect it's one of two things. Either it's an ideological commitment to being "open" that's being taken too fair. Or Google is really worried about the number of apps, so they can brag about it, in a juvenile contest with Apple over whose app sales outlet is bigger.

But it does annoy me to read people conflate the term "open source" with being more open general. They are not the same thing. The Android user who was quote by DED was a moron. But I suspect, DED specifically chose that quote for that reason.
post #75 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Maybe iOS will eventually become more like OS X as well? Time will tell.

I doubt it. And as a Mac user this has me worried. Apple is clearly enjoying the level of control they have over iOS devices. And they seem to be working hard to bring that to the Mac. The App Store was the first step. And I can't see the trend reversing any time soon.
post #76 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Let the fragmentation begin! What is kind of funny is that for decades Apple was the only major hardware reseller owning its own OS. . . Now all of a sudden its hip to have your own OS. If this trend continues Apple's dominance will only grow IMO.

What a great start to comments, digitalclips. Haven't even taken the time to see what the Envyboys are going to say but I bet its a toot. Ain't it great to back the horse that wins so far ahead the others can't even smell the gas?

I hand't thought of it this way. Tenacious little Apple stuck to its guns and is now mowin' down the competition while they don't even have their guns out of their holsters.

Wham, bang, thank you man for a great insight.

Namaste,
mhikl

PS Why is it that Applefans are so much smarter than the Envyboys?

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #77 of 105
I've read every post...

Everyone seems to be looking at this from a political or technical perspective.

Unless I missed them, there weren't any posts from the practical perspective... surprisingly!

Here's an Article that I don't like, but I agree with:

Motorola Mobility Must Have a Screw Loose
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #78 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I doubt it. And as a Mac user this has me worried. Apple is clearly enjoying the level of control they have over iOS devices. And they seem to be working hard to bring that to the Mac. The App Store was the first step. And I can't see the trend reversing any time soon.

I think your fears are misplaced. Ask yourself the following questions:

1) Since the "iOSification" of the Mac, has it become less "open", or "more"? Did the Mac App Store reduce the options you have? Is Lion less, or more, open than Snow Leopard?

My answers - The mac has clearly become more open. Mac App store has not reduced what you can install by a bit. On the other hand, Apple has gone ahead and included Mac OS Server in the regular Lion install. And if yesterday's ATI rumor is true, then the Hardware has also become more open.

2) Since the release of the iPhone, has it become more, or less open? Quite clearly, iOS has slowly, but surely, become more open with time. I think the only backwards step was enforcing the usage of only in-App purchases through Apple's API. But even this was not a new step, but rather the enforcement of an existing rule, in a very specific case (although, the only information we have is from the words of a competitor).

Clearly, the trend in both instances is towards more openness. I can't see any benefit in Apple moving backwards.

Cue the "30% of all iTunes revenue" nonsense. Its been said many many times over. Apple makes no money from the 30%, i.e. compared to their device sales. It took them 3 1/2 years to hand out 2Bn. That means the App Store generated about 900mn in 3 1/2 years, in revenue, without deducting credit card, app store dev and maintenance costs, over that period. Even if you assume the App Store had 0 costs, does it make ANY sense to sacrifice the billions of dollars of pure profit that the iOS devices bring in every quarter to bolster this tiny sliver of money?

Apple is not stupid. They will not kill the mac (its a business that would fall in the Fortune 500 by itself, and its still growing dramatically). Limiting usage like on iOS would do exactly that.
post #79 of 105
Wow...talk about a bad few days for the fandroids:

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...324_269784.htm
post #80 of 105
As always, Aysmco has a useful visualization of the market. Apple is making a ton of money on relatively few phones sold, while the Android miracle isn't actually making much money for anyone but HTC:



For all the talk of how Motorola should be "grateful" to Android, the fact is they've just barely managed to hover around any profitability at all, despite all the good press. That's better than losing money, as they were, but it's not really a great long-term position.

In fact, outside of HTC, none of the big name Android licensees are making much money on their phones. Samsung still sells a lot of feature phones so they have some of Nokia's broad and cheap vibe, LG still loses money, and SE does slightly better than Moto.

Android triumphalism masks this truth-- all together, these manufacturers are selling a lot of phones. Taken one at a time, none of them except HTC are making much of a business at it.

Which makes you wonder where Motorola is going to get the funds for the serious R&D necessary to field a competitive OS? I can see where they want differentiation-- the Android market is cutthroat, and only going to get worse.

But you don't jump on a free OS bandwagon because you're doing great in the mobile market, you do it because you need a lifeline. Android handsets are largely being made by companies that needed a lifeline, and now they're wondering what they can do to extend beyond merely keeping their heads above water. Trouble is, they need to abruptly become olympic swimmers and panting while hanging off the rope is a pretty bad starting place for those ambitions.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola hedging Android bet with new web-based OS