Intel CEO: Google Android experiencing chaotic growing pains - Page 2

It is the margins that allow Apple to innovate where others follow- which is a DIRECT benefit to consumers. And consumers are demonstrating their appreciation of that benefit by driving continuous marketshare gains, in spite of the competition. With the amount of revenue generated by the profitability is exactly HOW Apple does it. You don't see Dell, or HP or even Lenovo or Sony innovating at the same level as Apple. Which is why Apple has proven to be a moving target. Credit the Android team with the engineering chutzpah to be able to build out a parallel OS that can deliver attractive features that allow a price point from the handset makers that let them sell an attractive product at a decent price. But the Android team only is able to do it because Google is funding it as their ad revenue trojan horse in the mobile space.

You can be sure that Google is pumping a lot of money into Android to ensure that the platform gains the ubiquity they need to drive the profitability they want from the mobile space. Google is not intrinsically interested in Android as a platform, they are interested in Android as a mobile ad delivery vehicle. To that end they will do whatever they need to do to ensure that it delivers - until they find something that delivers better. If Andy was smart he would be cultivating background safety-nets to land Android in when Google switches gears and dumps it for something even more pervasive. Because Android is a COST center for Google, not a revenue center. There are no direct revenues generated by Android and this above all should be ever present in Rubin's mind.

What makes you think it's a one-man team? Or that they only work here?

I hope no one is so naive as to think a company like Google doesn't have paid PR shills out masquerading as "ordinary folk" on forums and blogs all over the place. And they aren't the only company that does this, I'm certain.

A CNN/Money article from last year speaks about Android, revenue, and how Google may benefit financially.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/...king-strategy/

A very thoughtful and well written post nvidea. Basically what I've tried to say since I don't know when here in assorted threads. Yours is far more eloquent.

I'm not against the premise and promise of targeted ads, and don't "hate Google" for going that route at all. Since I'm heavily involved in advertising myself, it is a very tempting carrot for me and my clients both. I've actually waxed poetically about GPS aware "push ads" to clients not too long ago. So I'm not worried about that.

What I am worried about, is the OTHER information gathered, and what they use IT for. No tin-hat here... but I just don't find it wise to throw your whole damn history out there for anyone and everyone to peruse through. Even an email sent from gmail, COULD come back to haunt you 10 years down the road. I feel for the FB crowd already, and it has been reported here in Germany that HR looks there first, and a few other websites for damning evidence against potential employees. What if Google sold your data, or sold their business, or maybe just spun of "mobile" and data services? Not possible? What if they get tired of being a software house?

The other major "schtick" is the "we are open" BS and "pulling" all the blinded F'boys (G'boys?) along like the Peid Piper, as well as many an unwary consumer along for the ride. Of course, I think everyone can see and assume what Google is trying to do here. BUT, the saying goes: "Assume" means making an Ass out of U and Me. You and me... but not Google, or any other nefarious partner and/or dev. with yours and my info.

Also, it's not about which platform is better, and what you can do with it. Apple already has Apps that can control far more than just AppleTV or your Mac, so nothing new there. But it is HOW they are controlled and managed... and with "open", what does the crisis management look like when someone or something, goes "bad".... and I'm not talking the MJ variety of Bad either.

Already one tech firm has been taken down a notch or 2 for over-reaching and abusing it's influence, but that was a B2B thing mostly. This time it's "our property"... or not... according to many an EULA and permission screen. Apple has it's faults in this area as well. However since their "bread and butter" (as duly noted above by others here) is not our info and ads, but our ability to purchase their products.... I'm far more forgivable in their gathering of "certain information", to leverage those purchases, and make them easier to use and enjoy. This is a FAR cry from Google's incentives IMHO.

My 3 cents

Every Google I/O I keep having flashbacks to Minority Report...

One thing to remember in this thread is that it's not like Apple didn't have it's own growing pains when it came to the iOS ecosystem. Some developers complained openly about Apple's curation policies and for good reason. Policies were being enforced selectively in many cases. Some apps were denied for political or marketing reasons (Google Voice as an example) and many were hung out to dry for weeks and months will little to no communication as to why. Apple finally got their act together and laid out the rules in plain english along with a healthy dose of "this is the spirit of what we meant by this rule." Finally, issues regarding apps from competitors were relaxed substancially since the anti-trust issues outweighed any political/marketing issues for denying them.

Are fundamental:

IF Google can make money by charging customers $10/year, why aren't they doing that now? They have (by your and other accounts) a massive user base - why aren't they monetizing it? Which is answered in the article - they positioned themselves as "open". To move to a subscription model would disrupt their user base. Same issue with the rest of their "free" offerings. It would also mean they would have to invest significantly in support - which they are not good at.

Android's "acceleration" only produces 2% of of operating income for mobile search/ad. In fact they make more off of TAC reduction than mobile search.

While Google collects 30% from Market app purchases, we know that in fact the Market has very few paid apps to collect on (because everyone wants free, ad-revv'd apps), and only sees 40% of ad revvs from free in-app ads. In fact, Google WANTS mostly ad-rev apps, not paid apps - because paid apps are a one-time hit, where ad-rev apps payback continuously.

The rest is highly speculative and runs counter to the primary drivers behind WHY Google does what it does. And the WHY is the the very heart of what drives Google. Which is why Android like everything else is a temporary interest and not an abiding one. Which is a shame really - because it is a good open standards OS.

A note about that Apple Malware scare:

I really can't believe that so many people are that clueless?!

I also can't believe that Apple has the "Open Successful Downloads" as a default setting!!!!

The first time I ran OSX years back, and Safari did that... I freaked! Coming from a Wintel box, it was a scary moment. I turned it, and on every other client/friends Mac off... immediately.

Reminds of a client a few years back when Windows malware, viuses, Trojans and drive-bys, etc. were all over the news here in Germany, including a Ministry warning country-wide regarding stolen bank accounts. A lady "friend of a friend" got a ubiquitous pop-up, and proceeded to hastily yank the plug on her machine from the wall, at the same time it was updating Windows. That was a fun conversation and repair... with no up-to-date back-up, as usual.

I do not miss those days at all, just fun reminiscing... and I hope that anyone I've "switched" over the last few years, is smarter this time around..... uhm...

...gotta go... I have a few emails to send and people to call!

The Android OS is not significantly "younger" than iOS and either is the Marketplace. "Growing pains" are not the issue here, and the shortfalls of Apple's start-up into their support of iOS are a matter of record. How that matters to your point is not clear. You cannot claim that Android is younger/subject to the same "growing pains" that the iOS had, without acknowledging that they are the same age. And that the growing paings are nothing more than the results of the decisions on their approach to the market.

"Android faces a problem similar to Microsoft's efforts to exert control over the Windows ecosystem, Otellini continued, noting that Windows originally ran on a variety of platforms before settling on Intel's x86 architecture."

I think he meant DOS. DOS ran on many different platforms but Windows was x86 only from the get go. But even MS knew the value of a single platform back then and attempted to change the world's Commodores, Apples and Ataris into MSX machines. Thank God they failed.

Note to editors: I have been using Apple computers since 1983 and continue to use them in my everyday work as well. I have a BA in English, a certificate in graphic design, and I'm one of the few folks out there who still bleed six-colors. So if you would like to hire me to do some writing for your publication. Please contact me via my email address. Thank you.

Here's an interesting question from MG Siegler via Gruber (emphasis, mine):


Why Isn’t Google Chrome A Part Of Android?

The real problem Android has is that for every handset sold Microsoft gets huge royalty fees on a per device basis.

Those fees are said to be higher that the licensing fees Microsoft takes for its mobile OS Windows Phone 7.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...10427052238659

A brilliant move on B&N's part in not agreeing to an NDA.

Thanks for the link to the insights!

Sorry, but Android is analogous to Windows as it runs on various 3rd party OEMs and Apple runs on Apple.

Unfortunately for Google, this isn't 1984 and Apple is being run by a Sugar Water CEO.

Cheers...


Yeah, I could not get it out of my mind while watching the Google I/O 2011 Keynote.