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

Originally Posted by IQatEdo

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!)

Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc

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.

Originally Posted by island hermit

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.

Originally Posted by Ireland

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.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

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.

Originally Posted by island hermit

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.

Originally Posted by SockRolid

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.

Originally Posted by DanaCameron

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.

Originally Posted by IQatEdo

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

Originally Posted by DaHarder

"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...

Originally Posted by destroyboredom

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?

Originally Posted by Euphoria

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

Originally Posted by addicted44

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.

Originally Posted by addicted44

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

Originally Posted by christopher126

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

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton

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

Originally Posted by digitalclips

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.

Originally Posted by Radjin

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.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

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.

Originally Posted by addicted44

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.

Originally Posted by tundraboy

...
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.
...

Originally Posted by tundraboy

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

Originally Posted by chronster

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

Originally Posted by SockRolid

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.

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

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?

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

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.

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

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

Originally Posted by addicted44

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.

Originally Posted by addicted44

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.

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

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

Originally Posted by digitalclips

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.

Originally Posted by Jetz

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.