Google plotted to give Motorola early advantage over other Android licensees - Page 4

1) I won't deny that but to be fair I was replying to the remark about the anger being non-sensical and non-trolls from both sides have a right to be miffed when being insulted
2) I agree with your thoughts on GV (mostly because that is exactly how I used it)
3) I mostly agree that Google doesn't have to make Motorola a profit center and hopefully just break even, BUT I think you are being overly optimistic as far as the other handset makers are concerned. They HAVE to put those skins on to differentiate and their DNA really isn't about updating existing but rather selling new kit. I personally hope that Google overhauls Motorola so that it doesn't produce dozens of types of phones every year and stick to 2-3 that are extremely high quality with regular updates. That would help establish a real brand for them instead of just another Android phone.

I think the part that bugs some of us contributors over here is that we aren't anything like the caricature of the supposed angry Android fan, yet we get some rather raging flak. And people seem to forget that it's far more likely that most Android users will have some Apple products than the other way around. Heck, surveys show that even among Android fans, the iPad is the leading tablet. If the dislike for all things Apple were as strong as some portend....


Fair enough. However, timeline aside. Again, how much of this is warranted. Suggesting that Google wanted to "kill the iPhone" and getting all defensive because Google entered the phone business and Apple hadn't gone into search. Really?

So in the Jobsian view of the world, Google should have bet the bank on Apple in a rather murky landscape and prayed really hard that the iPhone somehow would earn the largest marketshare on the mobile landscape. That's a lot to ask of a company. Particularly one like Apple, which tends to have scant little concern for their partners at large (particularly in the post-App Store world). Just look at how they've gone after magazine and book publishers once they've decided they want to provide that content.


I'm not sure I'm being clear. I'll try again. My point was that Google wanted far more than just being the default provider on iOS devices. Even if Google had 100% of the iOS market, that would have been a pittance to the wider mobile market as a whole. So yes, Apple wouldn't have screwed Google over. And nobody (not even Google's leadership) has suggested that. But hitching their wagon to Apple and watching as Microsoft took over the vast portion of the market would have been suicidal.


Given that smartphones were already something like 20-30% of the mobile market at the time, 1% of that billion unit mobile market would not have been anywhere close to half smartphone market.


While I give Apple a lot of credit here, not all of the "explosion" should be attributed to Apple alone. Smartphone sales had already started taking off well before Apple came along. If anything, it's cheap Androids and Blackberries that have enabled the smartphone explosion by making smartphones available at even the lowest budgets. But there's no doubt that Apple did change the way we look at, used and interacted with smartphones.


Not in any of Google's core areas. Search default is still Google. Map data is still sourced from Google (even if the app is made by Apple). Those are two of Google's biggest assets in the mobile space. And even if Apple were to completely change the maps app, and offer services like Navigation, Google wouldn't care as long as users are using and contributing to the data in its maps.


Meh. I always get surprised that Apple fans are soooo worried about Samsung, HTC, SE, etc. These companies would be out of the mobile business if it wasn't for Google....or rather they'd all be selling getting raped by Microsoft. They had no OS to compete with and for however (apparently) lacking Google's ecosystem, these OEMs had nothing that comes close at all. They will undoubtedly cultivate their alternatives (Bada for Samsung, Brew for HTC). But really, they know that Android is the only game in town for them. Google iterates faster than they ever could. Google also brings a whole host of software services that they can't compete with. Yet, they get a product that they can skin (MS gives them no such luxury) allowing for differentiation, backed by a strong brand (Google), with lower costs than the alternatives (Windows Phone 7), and more capabilities than anything they could produce in-house. Most importantly, consumers are buying Android phones. They aren't buying Windows Phones (puzzling to me....cause it's a nice OS...but that's another matter). And the only Bada phones that are selling are low budget (barely getting above dumb phone margins). Most of Samsung's profits are coming from its Android line-up. Ditto for HTC which has become the fifth largest OEM on the back of its Android line-up. The half dozen Windows Phone 7 models barely do anything for HTC.

There can be alternatives. But I have yet to see a push to drive these alternatives. Where's the push for example to develop Meego? Or why is no OEM trying to propel Mozilla's Gecko OS? I'm sure something will rise to challenge Android's growth, but it's not anywhere on the horizon yet. In the meantime, these OEMs would face a situation where Apple would have eaten their lunch and Microsoft their dinner, if they pass on their Android desserts.

Yes... AI Forums is a good example, Yahoo Group sites are another... but not the rumor/news threads. When members begin to talk strictly about a certain feature or have questions about features/software for OSX or iOS the discussions are usually civil. When members start discussing news (ie. litigation, Motorola, Android, Google etc.) then you can expect a lot of crap. The same can be said about Android tech forums as compared to Android rumor/news threads.

your last point is solid and I think most Android fans feel that way. Make Motorola devices the standard. OEMs can still differentiate with skins and such but if update cycles aren't guaranteed they will eventually lose favor. if there is to be bloatware let it be OEM specific apps like Sense does.

The only thing (other than investment and customization) keeping me with Android is the diamond in the rough that the developer community toys with. First G1, then N1, now (semi regrettably due to QC issues) the G2X.

future will be interesting one way or another.

I find some of these myths really bizarre. Take the paid apps situation. It defies logic to think that somebody who can buy a $200 Android phone can't afford the buck or two for an app. I have never understood where that idea came from. In reality, I know why I didn't buy many apps. To start with, a lot of them were crap, especially 6 months to 1 year ago. Quality is improving and I find that it's worth more of my money now. The other big problem for me was memory. The Nexus One has limited onboard memory and most good (and more pricey) apps still don't have app2SD capability. This means I've got no room on my phone for the app despite having plenty of space in the SD card. Then there's billing. The paid Android Market still hasn't made it to every country. Lastly, I've often found that iOS users pay for services that Google users get for free: Maps Navigation and Sky Map are two good examples. Given how good Maps Navigation is, why would I buy a navigation app if the service Google provides meets my needs just fine? Add all this up and it's a pretty complex picture for why apps sell poorly on Android. Yet it gets boiled down to, "Android users are poor and cheap."

And I'd concur that Android users tend to be critical of Google too. Just look at the Google Mobile help forums. Android users are Google's biggest critics.

Now wait a minute, how can you state that Microsoft was such a HUGE threat that Google couldn't rely on Apple for eyeballs and in this part of your post say that the handset makers would have been toast without Android? Microsoft has to run its software on something so if those handset makers would have been toast then Microsoft would not have been a threat at all. Although it is not hindsight, it is quite apparent that Microsoft was caught flat footed in the mobile space with its new OS hovering between 1-5% marketshare.

Also, I think you give Blackberry too much credit. iOS and Android caused the smartphone explosion. Blackberry just rode the wave as much as it could and is now crashing.

I think Google could and will do more. One of the things I could see Google doing is making Motorola a Vanilla Android OEM. This will push forward Android in its "raw" form and make the update cycle almost Apple-like.



+1

And, I can see Google doing a number of things beyond that. I can see them breaking off the non-core business (baby monitors). I can see them splitting up the handset and set-top box divisions and selling off the mobile division once it's profitable.


The problem isn't that the OEMs skin Android. This bit is misunderstood in the Apple-centric world. The problem is that they don't update their handsets fast enough becuase of their trouble (or rather laziness) with updating the skins. Throw an OEM into the mix that sets a benchmark with guaranteed OS updates and fragmentation goes down dramatically or the other OEMs will lose marketshare to the benchmark company. As a user, I think it's a great strategy.

+1 to your idea of 2-3 handsets a year. I'd go a few more than that (5-7 phones per year), but essentially only 1-2 handset per target market (Low, Mid, High, etc) with certain form variations (Qwerty slider, portrait keyboard, no keyboard) per year. Mind you, OEMs are moving in this direction with their families of phones (Galaxy-Galaxy S-Galaxy S II, Droid-Droid 2-Droid 3, etc.) with the baseline handset being released once per year and then the derivatives following suit. What's more necessary though is tight integration in whatever skin the OEM is applying so that they can pull off updates much quicker.

With all due respect, that is what I meant. I'm sure Google could care less if others skinned it to look different but the problem is that adds yet another level of work to get the updates to work well and get approved by the carriers. I think I have shown that I do have SOME knowledge about Android and if there are things I don't know, I have zero problem asking actual questions.

Interesting that all the DED haters can't quite articulate what they don't like about him or his writing. They make nebulous stabs at how "biased" he is, but fail to give examples other than contradictions of their own warped world view.

The first posters complain that this only applies to Motorola/Verizon, the Droid Android 2.0 release. That wasn't a Nexus phone. Sure, the HTC Nexus One phone came out after and the Samsung Nexus S came out after that, but you'd have to be a pure idiot to fail to grasp that Google isn't going to cycle through its licensees granting each an early advantage after it OWNES ONE OF THEM!

And look at how much of a lead Google granted Motorola with Android 3.0 and the Xoom. There weren't any real competitors until the summer, and they are still not doing much that's unique. It's like if Apple released a Mac model and then allowed cloners to copy it 6 months after sales had died down. That's an equal opportunity?

And you think Google is going to be giving its new competitors first crack at new OS releases? Are you guys really that devoted to the Android ideology that you not only refuse to see the truth but als have to attack and spew hatred about the people who are giving it to you?

Groklaw is a Linux/Android advocacy site. Present examples of them offering a more fair look at the evidence being presented. It's like saying Pravda is less biased than the NYT when writing about Russia. I'm sure the Russian Communists liked to think that.

But shame on you trolls for baseless attacks on the people giving you news. You're free to ignore the truth without heaping contempt on people with stellar track records.

A
what I don't get is that MIUI can update it's 100% custom rom from stock within 60 days of Androids update to 2.3 (and within 7 to subsequent versions 2.3.2-5) yet HTC can't update Sense quickly?

It never made sense to me.

Even if the OEMs flat out said that it was due to carriers, I wouldn't believe them. I think it's because they don't really care once you buy the phone and are just looking to sell more (although I thought HTC was actually good about updating. Is that not the case?)

Okay toast is exaggeration perhaps. But Microsoft would have been eating a huge chunk of their profits through Windows Mobile/Phone licensing fees. This is all money going to the OEMs right now since Android is free for them to use (though patent licensing is probably starting to put in some dents into that model). Windows Phone is even worse. No skinning means no differentiation. People complain about Android commodifying smartphones (though I have never seen anything wrong with cheaper handsets) but Windows Phone 7 would only accelerate that process.

In any event, a lot of them were already starting to cut back on Symbian and go to WinMo when the iPhone came out. If that transition continued Google would have been screwed. Hence the panic that you see in the documents released from the Oracle suit. They needed to offer the OEMs an alternative and quickly. I also think this is why Android was so poorly developed early on and has iterated with such huge jumps so quickly. They had to get going and get it out there and focus on improving it later.

As for MS's low marketshare, having played around with Windows Phone 7 I have a number of theories... To start with they threw out Windows Mobile. With no natural upgrade path, Windows Mobile users were now free to entertain alternatives. And there's no guarantee they would choose Windows Phone 7. Next, there could be liability from the Windows brand itself. Then there's the lack of apps (self-inflicted from canning Windows Mobile) and the fact that the OS was seriously lacking some basic features at launch. There's the lack of differentiation. If you see a bunch of Windows Phone at a store, it all looks quite confusing since they all look the same. That said, I think they'll do well with their Nokia deal, now that they are getting over the early stages of launching the OS and I would not be surprised to see them take 5-10% of the market by the end of 2012.


Perhaps that's a Canadian perspective. Blackberries are still hugely popular here among consumers. Mostly because of BBM. I know it's the same in the UK.

I was suggesting Blackberries helped because of the price. Blackberries are extremely cheap for consumers (often free on most plans). How many iPhones really go for free? (though there are certainly some plans where you can get an iPhone for free...the plans are rarely as cheap as the free Blackberry plans).

Apologies, I wasn't referring to you understanding the issue. But there's a lot of misunderstanding in these parts about "fragmentation".

This discussion with you is actually one of the most reasonable ones that I have ever had on AI.

You're absolutely right. They don't care about customers once you buy the phones. That comes from the old Windows Mobile days when MS put out updates or on Symbian where you just bought a new phone if you wanted a new version of the OS. The concept of OS updates is new territory to them.

HTC is one of the better companies. They do update their phones. The complaints are just about the speed of the updates.

HTC and a few others are currently paying Microsoft now although it is not the full fee so I guess they save a bit of cash in that regard. I still think Microsoft would have not been that much of a threat.

As for Win7, I think it's problem is marketing.
1) people might use windows, but it doesn't mean a lot of them like it so given the choice they wouldn't want it on their phone despite the fact that it is a totally different OS and looks pretty cool actually
2) why run a commercial on how you won't need to look at or use your phone with Win7 when people actually WANT to use their phones for stuff. It made no sense and had no compelling call to action. Look at iPhone/iPad commercials. They focus on different apps and functions a person would use IRL

You mean how Samsung, Acer, Asus and a handful of ther manufacturers all were demoing their Honeycomb hardware (and some software) soon after the Xoom was announced, aka before the xoom was out. You have NO evidence to show that there was any forced "lead time" given. You're just looking at when the product hit the market. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Furthermore, the "wifi xoom" barely came to market before the xformer or the iconia tab, and sales had hardly "died down" by the time these devices came to market. In fact, your favorite, DED was crowing about how poor the xoom was doing, even as the xformer couldn't be kept on the shelves.

The thing about arguments like yours is that they have to have some grounding in reality, at least a basis in fact, for you to build on. The "reality" of OS releases runs counter your assumption. This mythical lead time hasn't given ANY manufacturer any decided advantage. How long after the Nexus S did samsung STILL release phones with Froyo? How long after the OG droid did Motorola STILL release phones with 1.6?

In fact, with the exception of those flagship devices (nexus devices and phones like the Droid) ALL manufacturers tend to hit the market with latest OS phones around the same time, and none of them do it in what you would call a "timely" manner.

All I can say is Oy, nice discussion derailed.

Why the frack's sake do you keep beating on the "ie" in one slide? As I clearly pointed out in my last comment (which you cleverly avoided actually commenting on), the slide's author goes on to use "ie" incorrectly at the end of the slide. Which makes the first use of "ie" extremely suspect. It seems pretty clear that whether you or I or anyone else in the world understands the difference between "i.e." and "e.g", the slide's author at the very least thinks the terms have identical meaning.

Stop a second and actually use your brain instead of simply mindlessly attacking Google.

(late) Agreed. That's an old feature phone mindset and that is something that Apple's genius realized early (aka immediately) and Android OEMs are (slowly) beginning to realize. I think Windows is going to be pretty good with fragmentation.

Ummm, HTC is pretty good with updates (I suppose as the only HTC phones I've had were the G1 which stopped at 1.6 and the Nexus One which was a flagship phone) but a lot of their Sense UI updates are HUGE and some of their older phones despite having the hardware to run the new Sense UI don't have the space (why there are phones with less than 4GB of internal space is beyond me)