or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google appears ready to ditch Android over its intellectual property issues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google appears ready to ditch Android over its intellectual property issues

post #1 of 138
Thread Starter 
The discovery that Google's new Chromecast web streaming device is based on Google TV code stripped of Android features provides additional evidence that Google is working to distance itself from the Android platform that the company developed under the management of Andy Rubin.

chromecast-130724.jpg
Branded Chrome, not Android despite being Android not Chrome


While Android has been widely deployed on smartphones globally and is almost universally considered a tremendous success, the platform and its close association with its namesake Rubin, who was himself nicknamed "Android" while working at Apple in the early 1990s, has inflicted more liability and expense on Google than it has strategic opportunity, revenues or profits.

Evidence from multiple sources, including the design decisions behind Google's latest Chromecast product, support the idea that the company now sees more future potential and interest in investing in Chrome OS than in continuing to support Rubin's Android and defending the platform from ongoing intellectual property disputes, even if the company has no interest in publicizing those intentions.

Google TV, minus the Android



While Google presented its new Chromecast as running a scaled down Chrome OS, hackers examining the device have "concluded that it?s more Android than Chrome OS," adding, "to be specific, it?s actually a modified Google TV release, but with all of the Bionic / Dalvik stripped out and replaced with a single binary for Chromecast."

Bionic is Google's replacement standard C library for Android, which replaces the GPL-licensed code in Linux to avoid entangling Android software in GPL-related licensing issues. It's also optimized for running on lower end devices than the mainstream version of Linux aimed at PCs and servers. The most obvious reason for Google to drop compatibility with Android apps on Chromecast is to be able to offer the device at a very low price using minimal hardware.

Dalvik is the higher-level virtual machine of Android that runs apps. Android's Dalvik is essentially a rewritten, optimized variant of Sun's Java VM, an issue that has spawned a legal fight between Google and Oracle after the latter acquired Sun and accused Android of infringing its intellectual property.

Developers creating software for Android devices can target Dalvik with VM apps, or write native apps targeting the lower level Bionic. But neither of these are supported on Chromecast, unlike Google's previous attempts to target the living room with Google TV devices running specialized Android apps.

The most obvious reason for Google to drop compatibility with Android apps on Chromecast is to be able to offer the device at a very low price using minimal hardware; its new "casting" feature that's so simple it doesn't need a user interface or the ability to run apps of its own.

It also makes sense for Google to give the device "Chrome" branding rather than "Android" branding because while it requires the Chrome browser to "cast" WebRTC video streams to the device, it doesn't require an Android device to work, and has no need to associate itself with the Android ecosystem of smartphone apps it isn't designed to run.


Chromecast from the cloud


Source: Google


Google's shift from Android to Chrome on TV



At the same time however, the core strategy behind Chromecast that led to its scaled down design clearly appears to have been a major, late in the game shift for Google's living room aspirations, one that coincided with the surprise ouster of Rubin this spring.

Hackers' discovery that "most of the Google TV code was reused" for Chromecast, specifically that "the bootloader, kernel, init scripts, binaries, are all from the Google TV," lends credence to a report by the Wall Street Journal that described an Android TV prototype developed under Andy Rubin and shown in private at CES at the beginning of this year.

That project was reportedly abandoned this spring around the same time Rubin was demoted from running Google's Android platform. He was replaced by Sundar Pichai, who had previously worked on Google's Chrome browser and led Chrome OS development.

Google's Chrome-related branding for the new device makes sense, now that Android is under the direction of Pichai rather than Rubin. But it also signals the beginning of an even more significant shift, one that explains why Google put Rubin's prototype Android TV product on ice in favor of a much cheaper (and more strategic than profitable) web streaming dongle, and why the company replaced Rubin himself as the leader of Android with Pichai, who represents Google's other platform: Chrome OS.

Danger, will Rubin son!



Rubin joined Google in 2005 in the acquisition of the Android Inc. startup he had co-founded two years earlier. Little was originally known about Google's intentions for Android, but it appeared to be part of an initiative to promote its web services, including search and maps, across various mobile phone platforms.

After Apple launched iPhone in 2007, the market position of existing smartphone makers Palm and BlackBerry along with the licensed mobile platforms of Microsoft and Symbian quickly eroded as Apple established itself as the market leader in smartphones. Apple's iPhone came packed with first party software integrating Google features including web search, maps and YouTube.

Later that year, Google's announced plans to launch Android as an open source alternative to Microsoft's Windows Mobile and Nokia's Symbian for members of the Open Handset Alliance, initially led by HTC, Sony and Samsung. At the time, each was already building Windows Mobile and or Symbian devices.

A company video (below) portrayed an intention to facilitate innovative new mobile products across the industry, rather than being an attempt to build an in-house "gPhone" as an answer to Apple's iPhone, as some rumors had suggested.



As Apple's iPhone increasingly gained traction in the market, the overall conceptual design and features of Google's Android platform under Rubin's direction radically shifted to increasingly take on the appearance and functionally the iPhone, sparking tensions between Apple and Google.

Android copies iPhone


Those tensions increased as Apple delayed App Store approval for Google Voice in the summer of 2008 and later balked at integrating new features of Google Maps in iOS, including Google Latitude location tracking and the Google Maps+Navigation services that debuted with Android 2.0 in late 2009."Make no mistake; Google wants to kill the iPhone. We won't let them." - Steve Jobs

"We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business," Jobs reportedly told employees at a company meeting in February of 2010. "Make no mistake; Google wants to kill the iPhone. We won't let them."

Chrome OS leads to further split between Apple and Google in 2009



Android's increasing competition with iOS began forcing Google's chairman Eric Schmidt to recuse himself from attending any Apple board meetings that discussed the company's mobile strategies. Schmidt had been a member of Apple's board since August 2006.

In mid 2009, Google unveiled its plans to enter the netbook market with Chrome OS, with the expectation that the first batch of devices would ship by the middle of 2010.

Shortly after that announcement, Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs released a statement saying, "as Google enters more of Apple's core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric's effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple's Board."

Schmidt had apparently not been included in any of Apple's internal discussions related to iPad, which launched at the beginning of 2010. Its success essentially destroyed the once booming netbook category that Google's Chrome OS had originally targeted.

Google postponed the launch of Chrome OS netbooks to the end of 2010 and then again to the middle of 2011, when the first Chromebooks finally began appearing, initially from Samsung.

Chromebook


Without Chrome OS ready, Google didn't have any official response to the iPad for an entire year until early 2011, when It unveiled its separate Android 3.0 Honeycomb initiative aimed at taking over the iPad similar to how Android 2.0 had targeted the iPhone.

While both Android and Chrome OS are built on top of a Linux core, they share little relatively little else. That makes the two platforms internal rivals, much the same way that Apple II and Macintosh teams rivaled for attention within Apple in the 1980s, Newton and Mac OS platforms fought it out in the 1990s, and two teams pit embedded iPod Linux vs. a scaled down OS X mobile platform prior to the launch of iPhone in the 2000s.

Cracks begin appearing for Android in 2010



By 2010, Android had become the only serious competitor to Apple's iOS, while Chrome OS hadn't even materialized as a product yet. In part, this was because much of Google's attention had shifted from Chrome OS-based netbooks to preparing its new Android 3.0 Honeycomb tablet initiative aimed at Apple's increasingly popular iPad.

Android 3.0 Honeycomb more like Tablet PC than iPad


However, Google's future plans for Android would be dramatically reconfigured by unanticipated events that took root that year: the first was the budding series of problems that would result in the complete failure of Android 3.0 to support significant tablet sales for any of Google's hardware partners after its launch in 2011.

The second was the exact opposite problem: Samsung launched its own efforts to clone the iPhone 3GS and later the iPad, sparking intense legal tensions between it and Apple. By arming itself with a direct copy of Apple's iPhone, Samsung rapidly became the most successful Android licensee by far, eventually threatening Google's control over its own mobile platform.


Samsung Phones


Apple illustration of Samsung phones pre- and post-iPhone. | Source: Apple trial brief


Samsung refused to heed Google's requests in 2010 not to launch Android 2.x tablets before the new Android 3.0 was released in early 2011. It also ignored Google's written advice that its Galaxy Tab products were too similar in design to Apple's iPad.

More problems for Android in 2011



Samsung also refused to negotiate any settlement with Apple regarding its iPhone and iPad infringement concerns, resulting in Apple's eventual decision to sue Samsung in early 2011.

The failure of Android to benefit Google and its runaway success at Samsung grew publicly evident in 2011, as Android 3.x not only did nothing to boost tablet sales, but also took center stage in the flop of a second Google initiative aimed at home automation products: Android @ Home.

While Android was growing so widespread in smartphones to the point of outnumbering the installed base of iPhones, the only company that seemed to be benefitting financially from that was Samsung. A series of Google's own Nexus-branded phones had failed to gain much traction in the market and the Open Handset Alliance was increasingly populated by companies that were actively losing lots of money on smartphones.



Meanwhile, Apple's lawsuit against Samsung began revealing facts including the testimony that Google had only earned a total of $550 million from Android from its start in 2008 through 2011, effectively nothing at all compared to its existing web and network services.

Google was also earning relatively little from Android Market, bringing in less than 7 percent of what Apple had earned over the same period in the App Store.

Piper Jaffray


Third party developers were already aware that Android Market wasn't performing well, as Google previously addressed "anxious app developers" early in 2011 assuring them that it was working to address the problem and that it was "not happy" with the slow app sales itself.

Major problems for Android in 2012: losing Apple



Despite Android's vast distribution, Google was still earning 80 percent of its mobile revenues from iOS. But the friction Android was generating between Google and Apple was endangering even that.

Apple launched its own iAd mobile advertising platform in 2011 and began blocking by default web cookies "from third parties and advertisers" in Safari on the desktop, a move that threatened Google's core advertising business.

When Google attempted to secretly work around the block, it was hit with negative publicity and the largest fine in the history of the Federal Trade Commission.

Apple also began efforts to work with Google's search competitors, partnering with Baidu in China and adding Microsoft Bing and Yahoo search options to the Safari browser. At the end of 2011, Apple launched Siri, taking on Google web search and the company's voice-based services at the same time. For iOS 7, Apple has further outlined plans to have Siri provide users with Bing results by default.



iOS in the Car traffic


Source: Apple



In 2012 Apple hit Google again with the surprise launch of its own Maps, the culmination of years of work and mapping-related acquisitions. Next year, Apple plans to roll out iOS in the Car, combining Siri and Maps to deliver an automotive product that, had Android never existed, would otherwise likely have been a huge partnership opportunity between Apple and Google.

Google now has to enter the automotive market on its own. After failed attempts to bring Android into tablets, home automation and TV, that would appear to be a difficult task.

Major problems for Android in 2012: gaining Motorola



In what appears to have been an attempt to counter Google's increasing dependance upon Samsung, Rubin pushed within Google for the acquisition of Motorola. In February 2012, The Verge cited Rubin as having told reporters that he had "sponsored" the deal.

Rubin described the acquisition, which included 17,000 patents and 7,500 additional patent applications in progress, as a way to gain intellectual property leverage to protect the Android platform from lawsuits by Apple and Microsoft, stating in late 2011, "I see it as basically protecting the ecosystem and extending it as well."

Industry observers have also described the Motorola purchase as an effort to prevent Android's only exclusive licensee from joining Microsoft in a Nokia-like licensing deal to adopt Windows Phone, and a way to prevent Motorola from using its patents against other Android licensees. Motorola's executives threatened to do both prior to being bought out by Google.

Motorola


In addition, Google presented its $12.5 billion acquisition plan as a way for Google to gain its own hardware expertise, stating that the deal would "supercharge Android, enhance competition, and offer wonderful user experiences."

Shortly after the deal went through, Rubin told reporters he had "nothing to do with" Motorola and that, "I don't even know who's running it."

Rubin also added, "I don't even know anything about their products, I haven't seen anything," and that, "they're going to continue building Motorola branded devices and it's going to be the same team doing it," and, "they're separate from me, and I'm going to continue to do my thing."

Rubin also suggested that other Android licensees would have nothing to worry about, stating, "even if I was completely insane, it wouldn't make any sense for me to think that we could get Motorola to be 90-plus percent marketshare.""We've inherited 18 months of pipeline that we actually have to drain right now, while we're actually building the next wave of innovation and product lines" Google CFO Patrick Pichette

One year after the acquisition, Google has had very little success in leveraging any discernible benefit from Motorola's patent portfolio.

Additionally, this February The Verge cited Google's Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette as saying that products in Motorola's pipeline were "not really to the standards that what Google would say is 'wow,' innovative, transformative."

He added, "We've inherited 18 months of pipeline that we actually have to drain right now, while we're actually building the next wave of innovation and product lines," and, "we have to go through this transition. These are not easy transitions."

Last summer, in order to launch a Nexus-branded mini tablet, Google partnered with Asus rather that put its name on an existing Motorola product.

Rubin's role in pushing for the acquisition of Motorola to 'protect and extend' Android has been cited as key to his removal as the head of Android in the leadership restructuring that occured in March. However, Rubin also played an earlier role in creating a separate potentially lethal problem for Android.

Android's tainted intellectual property issues



Prior to leading Android at Google and co-founding Android, Inc. before that, Rubin had co-founded its predecessor Danger, which had developed a smartphone messaging device based on the Java VM, albeit using legitimately licensed software from Sun.

After Google acquired Android to launch its own foray into smartphones, Microsoft snapped up Danger in the Pink Project initiative that resulted in the KIN fiasco and involved a major cloud data loss scandal for Danger and T-Mobile.

Andy Rubin, from Apple to Android


Prior to Danger, Rubin had worked at WebTV, a startup founded in 1995 largely by employees from Apple and the General Magic group Apple had earlier spun off into a separate company. WebTV was also acquired by Microsoft and essentially scuttled in a failed attempt to port the Sun-based service to hardware using Windows CE.

And before that, Rubin had served as a low-level engineer at Apple from 1989 to 1992, where he worked on on technology that Apple now asserts was illegitimately appropriated for use in Google's Android, including the "'263 patent" (unrelated to H.263) it brought against HTC.

U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263, entitled "Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data," describes "the use of real-time application programming interfaces (APIs) interposed between application software or driver software and the real-time processing subsystem."

Patent expert Florian Mueller initially described the technology as foundational to Android and "extremely hard" to work around.

Nearly a year after the patent was interpreted in court in Apple's favor at the beginning of 2012, HTC decided to stop fighting and settle, signing a ten-year patent licensing agreement with Apple last November over its use of Android.While Google contributes most of the efforts required to develop and support Android, it makes very little from it.

Apple now appears to be making more money on sales of HTC's Android smartphones than HTC does. Microsoft and Nokia have also brought claims against Android licensees; Microsoft now appears to be making more money on its Android licensing agreements than it makes selling its own Windows Phone platform.

While Google contributes most of the efforts required to develop and support Android, it makes very little from it, almost certainly less than Microsoft does from licensing its IP to Android hardware makers. It clearly benefits less from Android than Samsung, even as it serves as essentially a free software development volunteer for the company.

Protecting Android's tainted intellectual property gets expensive



Google's own plan to monetize or at least defensively leverage Motorola patents has collapsed over the past year, leaving it with an unproductive subsidiary that's actively losing money: $342 million in the last quarter alone.

Google also recorded another $116 million in "amortization expenses of acquisition-related intangible assets" related to Motorola against its own ledger. In other words, it counted that much additional depreciation of Motorola assets (such as expiring intellectual property) as a loss against its own income.

Even ignoring those hits to Google's reported income, the company has recorded regular quarterly losses of $271 million, $353 million, $527 million and $233 million from its Motorola subsidiary since acquiring the company to "protect" Android. That's over $1.7 billion in total losses across just five quarters, on top of the $12.5 billion acquisition price.

Google is now in the unenviable position of Microsoft, saddled with a mobile platform that isn't exactly printing money, but which it can't just throw away because its future depends on having some presence in mobile, given that its current revenues are tied to the shrinking desktop PC market.

It's also not particularly helpful that so much of the growth occurring for Android is happening in China, where Google doesn't even really benefit from the web search traffic that its platform generates.

Android gets X-ed



It would certainly be helpful if Google had a mobile platform that wasn't tainted by the intellectual property claims rooted to the core of Android. While Chrome OS isn't quite ready to serve as a drop in replacement for Android, there's several hints pointing toward Google moving in that direction.

Last year, Google rebranded its Android Market as "Google Play," erasing direct association with Android. Additionally, Google has announced plans to replace its acquired Motorola's "Droid" branded hardware lineup under a new brand: "Moto X."

Google Play


That makes the Chromecast the third significant erasing of the Android brand from Google's current and future hardware trademarks.

Deceleration of Android releases



Perhaps due to fragmentation concerns, Google has also dramatically slowed the pace of new Android development. Google chowed though four desert named releases in its first year, followed by two years of two major releases, but has spent the entire last year stuck on Jelly Bean.

The next major release, Android 5.0 Key Lime Pie, was rumored to appear last fall, then earlier this year, and now later this year, a release date slipping further than Chrome OS did back in 2009.

The last minor update of Jelly Bean wasn't even released in time to show at the company's IO developer convention this summer, which regularly scheduled more sessions on Chrome than Android every day of the event.

Slipping releases are never a good sign; just ask Apple about Copland and Gershwin in its beleaguered era of the 1990s, or Microsoft about Longhorn in the 2000s.

Out with Rubin, back to the web



The most substantial evidence supporting the idea Google doesn't plan to perpetually maintain two different operating environments is that it appointed the head of Chrome OS to replace the head of Android.

Chrome OS is also philosophically closer to everything else Google does because its based on web standards; Rubin's rejiggered Java VM platform is an oddball product that simply doesn't mesh with everything else the company does, on top of having exposed Google to intellectual property infringement liabilities and inciting its closest partners to become competitors.

Chromebook


Google constantly updates the components of Chrome OS just like its Chrome browser, or like its various web services and apps that are often updated behind the scenes so regularly that they lack any notion of a specific version number.

In introducing Chromecast, Google also highlighted that it can work with any platform, rather than being tied to a specific device platform like Rubin's Nexus Q, which required an Android 2.x device.

Google is certain to reaffirm its commitments to Android whenever necessary, but the writing on the wall appears very clear: Android's days appear to be numbered at Google.
post #2 of 138

lol.gif - now to go back and read this piece.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #3 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

lol.gif - now to go back and read this piece.

 

Not 'piece', Load is more like it, would be funny if it was true, wouldn't matter, its open source, i bet samsung would pay what it needed to for the IP & keep it going.

My 2cents.

post #4 of 138
this will not happen.
post #5 of 138

 

Apple managed the astonishing feat of getting the equivalent of a personal computer into the hands of everybody from eight to eighty year olds, and did so while providing absolutely no instructions...
Reply
Apple managed the astonishing feat of getting the equivalent of a personal computer into the hands of everybody from eight to eighty year olds, and did so while providing absolutely no instructions...
Reply
post #6 of 138
At first I thought the headline was crazy, but after reading the whole article, I think you make a strong business case.
They seem to have burned their bridges. Samsung does not need them. Amazon does not need them. Apple does not need them. Who needs a new version of Android?

How is the tablet space gonna grow? It will be a race to the bottom against Amazon. Samsung will get their butt handed to them against Amazon based on price.
Edited by snova - 7/29/13 at 12:27am
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #7 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

<image>

 

I want to hear it though! (Is it kind of squealy and irritating?) (I realise that this is a keyboard shortcut but it should have an associated tone.)

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #8 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Chrome OS is also philosophically closer to everything else Google does because its based on web standards; Rubin's rejiggered Java VM platform is an oddball product that simply doesn't mesh with everything else the company does, 

This is a key point IMHO. Google has always been about the web and web apps. A browser based OS such as Chrome makes much more sense as "their" OS, than a thick client OS (whether that be native or Java/Dalvik) ever did.

post #9 of 138
1) someone is going to quote the entire article, no?

2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Hackers' discovery that "most of the Google TV code was reused" for Chromecast, specifically that "the bootloader, kernel, init scripts, binaries, are all from the Google TV," lends credence to a report by the Wall Street Journal that described an Android TV prototype developed under Andy Rubin and shown in private at CES at the beginning of this year.

Why is there a private showing at a public event?

3) This Andy Rubin seemed like a very smart person, yet reading an article like this one, or any previous ones about him, makes me wonder if he's smart at all. Why did he deny his (alleged!) involvement in the Moto deal?

4) LOL at GTR. Again.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #10 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

pic

LoL. The day that is a *default* shortcut, is the day we know Apple has their moxie back.

post #11 of 138
Seem like the creation of Android was to create an open platform that was not controlled by any one vendor to ensure that Google search business was not at risk. However, in doing so they pissed off Apple on the iOS platform, and the Android platform is now controlled by Samsung. In other words they failed on the original goal. To grow the phone platform they also got into the content space. This pissed off Amazon; which forked Android. I don't think they can effectively compete with Amazon in tablet space. Google need to get out of paid content market and patch thing up with amazon to get search into amazon tablets. Paid content in google play store is the wrong direction for google, It only will bring pain. Google is not a product or content company. They need to partner with Amazon for paid content in exchange for use of google services.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #12 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Hackers' discovery that "most of the Google TV code was reused" for Chromecast, specifically that "the bootloader, kernel, init scripts, binaries, are all from the Google TV," lends credence to a report by the Wall Street Journal that described an Android TV prototype developed under Andy Rubin and shown in private at CES at the beginning of this year.

Why is there a private showing at a public event?
 

 

This happens at pretty much all of these trade shows. Companies typically call them "whisper suites". They disclose upcoming roadmaps, etc under NDA for their partners and important customers. This is done at the public events because everyone will be physically in the same location anyway. So the logistics of doing this is much better for everyone involved. 

post #13 of 138

It's worth remembering that DED's Android predictions are almost always wrong. This is what happens when you draw a conclusion and then go looking for evidence to support your conclusion, rather than looking at the evidence and then drawing a conclusion based on the evidence.

post #14 of 138

If it is going to be true... yes, Google should concentrate on Chrome OS.

And, Apple should not welcome Google back to their eco system, (if at all) just because they ditched Android.

 

nice read.

post #15 of 138

Daniel would be a great science fiction writer


Edited by Gwydion - 7/29/13 at 3:29am
post #16 of 138
There are very strong indications Samsung also plans to abandon Google and Android in favor of their own OS that is underdevelopment. Then Samsung can imitate Apple by controlling it all vertically with their own app store, search engine etc.

I got the impression somewhere this may occur as early as 2013 at a Samsung world wide developers meeting in the USA, another blatant copy of how Apple works.

Android fans may be won over by the fact Samsun plans to allow existing Android apps to be modified to run on their new OS.

If anyone is interested a little bit of research should verify these points.
Edited by 4phun - 7/29/13 at 3:24am
post #17 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4phun View Post

There are very strong indications Samsung also plans to abandon Google and Android in favor of their own OS that is underdevelopment.
 

 

Can you point to those strong indications?

post #18 of 138

This explains the sudden extreme slow down in Android development.  I think their focus is on moving to Chrome OS and will eventually abandon Android like they do anything that is not making them money, as they should.  They talk about Android activations but that metric does not significantly move the needle on their bottom line.  Chrome OS would allow them to regain control over their ecosystem because everything would be on their servers like they like it.  It would also make it impossible for partners to cut them out of their own development.  I'm sure their followers would not even acknowledge being affected by the demise of Android since most would have to buy a new phone to get a new OS any way.  I have to admit that it would be pretty impressive to use such a horrible weakness as an advantage.  This would also protect them from companies like Samsung taking all of the value from their platform while putting it at further risk and dragging Google into law suits by incorporating the intellectual property of others in their version of the OS more blatantly than even Google felt comfortable with.  Since most of their users don't use the same types of power apps that are more popular on IOS many of their mainstream buyers won't even notice as long as they have Facebook and Candy Crush. Oh and Instagram.     

post #19 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

 

Can you point to those strong indications?

Certainly but I think everyone would agree that you should do your own research in the fast moving field of tech to avoid fanboy misinformation. 

 

Start here with old news:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-samsungs-plan-free-itself-000400865.html

 

That link is six months old and there have been quite a few more details  seen since including reference to   2013 for the developers meeting on the  West Coast being very significant in Samsung's plans going forward.


Edited by 4phun - 7/29/13 at 3:22am
post #20 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

 

Can you point to those strong indications?

I have seen them too. For one the fact that they have been bypassing many of the new Android signature technologies and pushing their own in their place which undermines Google since Samsung sell most of the Android phones.  They have also gone outside of Android to provide security for businesses and a consumer theft deterrent.  With Samsung just released S4 they are now pushing Samsung Apps and Samsung Hub that completely replace Google Play but also provides their proprietary apps as well.  They also just announce their own developer conference for October 2013.  Google can see the writing on the wall even if their supporters don't.

post #21 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4phun View Post

Certainly but I think everyone would agree that you should do your own research in the fast moving field of tech to avoid fanboy misinformation. 

 

Start here with old news:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-samsungs-plan-free-itself-000400865.html

 

That link is six months old and there have been quite a few more details  seen since including reference to August 2013 for the developers meeting on the  West Coast being very significant in Samsung's plans going forward.

 

I have done my research, I'm asking you you "strong indications", those are your words.

 

Samsung building a Tizen smartphone doesn't imply Samsung leaving Google or Android and they are not "strong indications", they have developed Bada phones, WP7.5 and WP8 phones and they don't have left Android. Why developing a Tizen smartphone would mean leaving Android?

 

By the way, Tizen OpenMobile's Application Compatibility Layer can't execute Google Services

post #22 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

I have seen them too. For one the fact that they have been bypassing many of the new Android signature technologies and pushing their own in their place which undermines Google since Samsung sell most of the Android phones.  They have also gone outside of Android to provide security for businesses and a consumer theft deterrent.  With Samsung just released S4 they are now pushing Samsung Apps and Samsung Hub that completely replace Google Play but also provides their proprietary apps as well.  They also just announce their own developer conference for October 2013.  Google can see the writing on the wall even if their supporters don't.

 

Since when adding features is leaving apart the core? It is funny, the only ones seeing Samsung leaving Android or forking it are the ones that can't stand Android

post #23 of 138
Google has to do something.

They are dumping massive resources into Android and getting next to nothing in return. Setting aside the $14.2 billion Moto sinkhole I'd be surprised if they are breaking even with search revenue. More likely that is also running in the red as they are giving tablets away at cost just to break into mobile search, an area Apple owns directly and indirectly.

I'm sure Samsung is loving it but this leaves Google with three choices, go to war with Samsung to take back marketshare and/or charge Samsung and every other phone maker for development and/or get out slowly to save face.

War with Samsung to take back marketshare will be long and costly and licensing will make Android more expensive thus benefiting the iPhone.

No matter what Google is going to bleed billions more in profit before this is over.

In the end crossing Apple yielded them nothing but an expensive lessen.

I'm not surprised they are in serious talks with Apple again.
post #24 of 138

Hope this isn't the cliffhanger/bomb he told us he was going to drop lol

post #25 of 138

Google has bled $14.2 billion and is looking at continuing billion dollar losses. Explain how they turn a profit?

post #26 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

At first I thought the headline was crazy, but after reading the whole article, I think you make a strong business case.
They seem to have burned their bridges. Samsung does not need them. Amazon does not need them. Apple does not need them. Who needs a new version of Android?

How is the tablet space gonna grow? It will be a race to the bottom against Amazon. Samsung will get their butt handed to them against Amazon based on price.

 

Yeah and Amazon barely makes money either. Giving things away is not a profitable business model but what a boon for consumers!

 

The very best of socialism. Amazon employs thousands, generates business for thousands of companies who employ thousands and provide and awesome almost-at-cost service to consumers while trickling up meager profits to rich investors who contribute nothing.

post #27 of 138

This article is like 3 stories tall.  My neighbors on the 6th floor are seeing AppleInsider's header right now, after all the down-scrolling.

 

Anyone who didn't bury their heads in the sand for the last 5 years has noticed that Android never delivered on its original premise, since Google has been gaining more from iOS than from its own platform all along.  Android was simply a random guy's project who was lucky to receive a lot more attention than it deserved from a multi-billion dollar company.

 

It would, however, surprise me to see Android die after Google wasted so much time and resources on it, not to mention that this would create a huge void that would be hard for the competition to fill.  Android took Symbian's position, but if it dies by itself, who's gonna take its position now that Symbian is dead and buried? Microsoft?  Blackberry?  Would we see a return of vendor-specific firmwares (likely Android-based)?  And can Google repair the damage that its aggressive push for Android has caused to the company?  I'd still like Google Maps back as default, because Apple Maps can not compete with it, but would Apple go back?

post #28 of 138
On the contrary: I see Google reining Android in, making it a more "closed platform." My evidence? Purchasing Motorola, beginning to offer "pure" experiences on Samsung, HTC, etc phones.

Dream on, author. Android isn't going away. But it is evolving. My prediction, within 3 years Android phones be sold by only Motorola. Samsung will go with Tizen and the others will either develop their own OS or fade away.

Just my .02
post #29 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

It's worth remembering that DED's Android predictions are almost always wrong. This is what happens when you draw a conclusion and then go looking for evidence to support your conclusion, rather than looking at the evidence and then drawing a conclusion based on the evidence.
I swear sometimes this site is GoogleInsider.com
post #30 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentx View Post

Yeah and Amazon barely makes money either. Giving things away is not a profitable business model but what a boon for consumers!

The very best of socialism. Amazon employs thousands, generates business for thousands of companies who employ thousands and provide and awesome almost-at-cost service to consumers while trickling up meager profits to rich investors who contribute nothing.
What happens when Amazon decides (or Wall Street demands) it needs to turn a profit? Where is the profit going to come from?
post #31 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico View Post

This article is like 3 stories tall.  My neighbors on the 6th floor are seeing AppleInsider's header right now, after all the down-scrolling.

 

Anyone who didn't bury their heads in the sand for the last 5 years has noticed that Android never delivered on its original premise, since Google has been gaining more from iOS than from its own platform all along.  Android was simply a random guy's project who was lucky to receive a lot more attention than it deserved from a multi-billion dollar company.

 

It would, however, surprise me to see Android die after Google wasted so much time and resources on it, not to mention that this would create a huge void that would be hard for the competition to fill.  Android took Symbian's position, but if it dies by itself, who's gonna take its position now that Symbian is dead and buried? Microsoft?  Blackberry?  Would we see a return of vendor-specific firmwares (likely Android-based)?  And can Google repair the damage that its aggressive push for Android has caused to the company?  I'd still like Google Maps back as default, because Apple Maps can not compete with it, but would Apple go back?

It will not suddenly die. It will go away, little by little. Chrome will begin to have a more major role in Android until Chrome OS is ready. And when that time comes Fandroids will hailed it as a big success of Google, a natural progression from Android, not the getting rid of the failure people on Apple camp believe.

post #32 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentx View Post


In the end crossing Apple yielded them nothing but an expensive lessen.

I'm not surprised they are in serious talks with Apple again.

I keep seeing this comment, aren't Google apps still some of the most downloaded on iTunes, yep just checked. Google search might no longer be the default but I truly believe no one will be using Bing with iOS 7 and will just type Google.com into Safari, at least that's what I'll be doing, Bing is utter crap. Why can't I change the default search engine back to Google if I wanted too or change the default browser for that matter.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #33 of 138
Google produced Android to preserve and grow their search business. Nothing more. With growth in emerging markets as the key driver in the industry, Android is a large way for them to access these new, first-time customers. For many around the world, a stripped-down Android phone is their primary if not only access to the web. Mobile is by far gout pacing other channels in terms of global growth, and Google want to own these markets worldwide. Android is not going anywhere, and we will see more development and innovation as Google more tightly integrates their product services into Android.
post #34 of 138

I feel that the long drought in Android updates is simply Google realising the futility of releasing so many new versions of their OS in so short a period of time, when they simply aren't cascading down to the end users. Not everyone is going to run out and buy a new phone everytime Android updates, much less be savvy enough to root their phones. I would like to believe that they are simply brainstorming a more effective way of pushing them to the consumers.

 

After all, while Apple updates IOS once a year, all iphone users are going to get it, and get it on the same day, without fear of carrier meddling. 

 

Android isn't going anywhere, though I do believe that it will eventually become more closed. Apple has shown that the most profitable way is still to control the hardware and software. Samsung is trying to do something like that, and I think the siren's call of higher profits will eventually tempt Google to do the same thing as well. 

post #35 of 138

Another brilliant article from AI ....

 

Now we know why Google has been in lots of lots of talks with Apple! ;)

 

Google: We are so sorry for stealing and copying your codes. We even kicked Andy out of company ...

 

Apple: ....

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #36 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


I keep seeing this comment, aren't Google apps still some of the most downloaded on iTunes, yep just checked. Google search might no longer be the default but I truly believe no one will be using Bing with iOS 7 and will just type Google.com into Safari, at least that's what I'll be doing, Bing is utter crap. Why can't I change the default search engine back to Google if I wanted too or change the default browser for that matter.

 

OK, maybe I'm missing something here.  But what's wrong with Bing?  It seems to me that the different engines do things slightly differently, sure, but the fact of the matter remains: If you type "How do I make a pot roast?" into any of them, you'll more than likely get a decent set of results.

 

A search engine is a search engine, from what I can tell.

post #37 of 138
The whole article is based on the wrong assumption: they did not use Android therefore they want to dump it. You might want to step back and see what is Android, exactly and what it is for.
Android consists of several layers:
- Linux kernel (slightly modified, but very close now to mainline)
- Dalvik virtual machine (for all means a purposes a modified Java virtual machine)
- Android SDK, used for user interaction

Now the Chromecast does not have an UI per se (it does just one thing) and does not need sensors and the like. Android SDK and Dalvik would be an overkill for such a low cost platform (native code runs faster than Java/Dalvik binaries) so they kept the Linux kernel and they ran the Chrome application natively to get the best performance.

So you are reading too much in the tea leaves: Google operates differently than Apple and engineers can influence a decision.

(That does not change the fact Samsung is the biggest beast in Android world. But I might have noticed they are hedging their bets with Tizen)
post #38 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


I keep seeing this comment, aren't Google apps still some of the most downloaded on iTunes, yep just checked. 

Maybe that's another reason for them not to do Android any more? In the beginning they worried: "If we don't do this OS, Apple will put their own services on iPhone and lock us out," but now they see that people will ignore the built in apps and use Google's anyway, so they didn't need their own OS after all.

post #39 of 138
Tl:dr

They clearly took Android out because it's a laggy SOB and indications have said that this device skips and jerks with an already cut down version of GoogleTV code. With Android left in it wouldn't move. No way Google will ditch Android.
I even hope that Samesung's Tizen comes out and is a strong contender. A 2 pronged attack from the 2 biggest phone manufacturers might just be enough to kill it from phone use.
post #40 of 138

Best part of the whole article:

Danger, will Rubin son!

 

 

 

Worst part?

"its" vs. "it's"; "desert" vs. "dessert".

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google appears ready to ditch Android over its intellectual property issues
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google appears ready to ditch Android over its intellectual property issues