Microsoft created a closed brand to compete with their licensed brand. Only a moron would stay with a company that would do something like that.
Google hasn't done this...they're just selling phones direct to customers. How does this alienate them from hardware manufacturers exactly?
Because Google is selling hardware and taking a piece of their pie. If you think Motorola isn't pissed that they will be competing with a Google phone on VZW in the coming months, pick up the phone and call them to ask.
What Jobs was able to do was coral the dweebs (programmers) of this world into producing something usable. Make the hardware and the software-it's the only model that works.
Just look at any tv interface, cable interface or for that matter any camera interface and it's mostly unintuitive crap! Or better yet look at one of those 'simple' slide show picture frames and the software is just plain hopeless!
Apple has it right. Google, MS, Dell, Sony, HP have it wrong! Sorry.
Let's build a house were the plumber, electrician, roofer and framer don't have the same set of plans.
I have been long Apple and I am concerned about the competitive threat from the Android phones. I went to the T-Mobile store to check out the models. They did not have the Nexus One, but I tested the HTC phones. The UI is not intuitive and the operation is balky. Commands do not get executed smoothly. I would need to read the manual, something that I hate to do. The hardware itself was flimsy. The store and the staff gave the image of a half way house.
Then I went to the VZ store to check out the Moto Droid. The hardware was solid and felt like traditional Moto design. Still the UI and the rest of the software was too complex and not intuitive.
I am not underestimating the competition, but I am not impressed. Sure, GV, etc make the product attractive for niche users. Or folks not with ATT.
Yes, that usually comes from owning 95% of desktop OS market...
That's wrong. It comes from laziness and lack of direction. MS will be profitable for now because they are the standard. Once the web is capable of performing all of the needs of the basic user, then they are in trouble because the web becomes the standard. At that point you'll start to see the average user moving towards Linux and Chrome because it will be good enough.
You may see people also move towards the Apple tablet because it is geared towards this because the OS as we know it know it now will not be the same in ten years.
Dynasties don't last long, espescially in tech where things move so fast.
That's wrong. It comes from laziness and lack of direction. MS will be profitable for now because they are the standard. Once the web is capable of performing all of the needs of the basic user, then they are in trouble because the web becomes the standard. At that point you'll start to see the average user moving towards Linux and Chrome because it will be good enough.
You may see people also move towards the Apple tablet because it is geared towards this because the OS as we know it know it now will not be the same in ten years.
Dynasties don't last long, espescially in tech where things move so fast.
MS will always be strong in its core enterprise market, just like IBM has for 60 years despite its ups and downs. but its Office money machine will slowly dissipate as growing alternatives force continued price cuts. its desktop monopoly will gradually decline too as mobile products of all kinds grow to equal volume - until then one day a Chinese or Indian company brings out a competing desktop OS that takes away its second and third world markets as well. but in the consumer products business, including cloud services and advertising, it will remain what it is today: one of many and usually an also ran.
Like IBM, all that still will produce a lot of profits for decades. but its days of true dominance - a bit more than a decade - are already fading. that couldn't last. it never does.
Even today, Microsoft still maintains two very different client operating systems in its primary offerings
At least three if you include XBox360, which is a distant relative of Windows NT. But there's also Zune's OS which is different from Windows Mobile, and Windows Mobile is going to be pretty fragmented with pre-6.5, 6.5, and 7.0+ versions on the market at once.
In short, Microsoft is saying "Don't screw up all your operating system development like we did." They got Windows 7 more or less right so they're probably not going to suffer Apple-in-the-90's fate, but they're sure not firing on all cylinders.
Microsoft made a lot of mistakes with the Zune. I did love my HD but the first gen Zune was meh. Still the Zune brand isnt out for the count, atleast not for the next 3 years.
Microsoft's biggest mistake is wrong timing. Here is what i think they should have done.
The Zune 30 should have been ready to roll in late 04. While they still wouldn't have caught the iTunes, the Zune was mildly popular and had roughly 11% of the market in its prime, the earlier would have been the better.
Nov 05 rolls around. Xbox 360 comes out and Zune Media Player is what is used for playback on the console and looks/functions like the desktop partner (Zune launched nearly a full year after the 360, this really shows MS lack of foresight). To stream you music from PC to 360, Zune desktop software needs to be installed, this now builds it some on PC. Now they have mass awareness of their product and stand a better chance, but thats not how it went down sadly.
So what can they do to turn it around? Well Zune Phone would be nice (no one cares about WinMo, subsequently the same will happen with Zune on WinMo) and have it be its own brand, and with the way their marketshare is falling there isnt a better time to strike than now. Also one has to assume whatever next console from Microsoft will push Zune more heavily for media features.
MS will always be strong in its core enterprise market, just like IBM has for 60 years despite its ups and downs. but its Office money machine will slowly dissipate as growing alternatives force continued price cuts. its desktop monopoly will gradually decline too as mobile products of all kinds grow to equal volume - until then one day a Chinese or Indian company brings out a competing desktop OS that takes away its second and third world markets as well. but in the consumer products business, including cloud services and advertising, it will remain what it is today: one of many and usually an also ran.
Like IBM, all that still will produce a lot of profits for decades. but its days of true dominance - a bit more than a decade - are already fading. that couldn't last. it never does.
And incidentally, Microsoft owns its success as a dominating OS vendor to IBM's mindshare in the enterprise market.
CP/M was a better and more mature OS, and it was licensed just like MS-DOS eventually was. Being "IBM compatible" was a selling-point that made all the difference in the world.
It's not as bad, but playing favorites isn't a good way to encourage an ecosystem around Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub
Because Google is selling hardware and taking a piece of their pie. If you think Motorola isn't pissed that they will be competing with a Google phone on VZW in the coming months, pick up the phone and call them to ask.
Google has already stated that they will offer other phones from other manufacturers in their e-store. This HTC phone is only the first. Furthermore, Google has also made it clear that this is an HTC phone, not a Google branded phone. Let's also not forget that Google worked closely with Motorola and Verizon on the Droid; it was the first device to get Android 2.0 with its turn-by-turn navigation. This type of "favoritism" is going to happen with each new hardware / OS release.
All Google is really attempting to do is remove the carrier from the equation and offer a direct to consumer experience. By law, mobile carriers must allow any compatible device to run on their networks. Google is providing the phone and will also bundle service plans just as Best Buy and any other retailer does. This will give Google a way to control the platform better. This is more similar to the Windows desktop market, than it is to Microsoft's mobile platforms market, in which they have an incentive to give an advantage towards its own branded hardware versus any licensed competitors.
EDIT: Even more differentiating... Android is completely free and open sourced meaning manufacturers or carriers can modify the operating system in any manner they wish; they are not dependent on Google. This was not true of PlaysForSure, Windows Mobile, or Windows CE, where Microsoft controlled the development of the operating system. All Google promised was a free alternative to Windows Mobile to handset makers and wireless carriers.
Because Google is selling hardware and taking a piece of their pie. If you think Motorola isn't pissed that they will be competing with a Google phone on VZW in the coming months, pick up the phone and call them to ask.
And to ease of some pain from Google's back, avoid searching for this on Google - try Yahoo instead
Google has already stated that they will offer other phones from other manufacturers in their e-store. This HTC phone is only the first. Furthermore, Google has also made it clear that this is an HTC phone, not a Google branded phone. Let's also not forget that Google worked closely with Motorola and Verizon on the Droid; it was the first device to get Android 2.0 with its turn-by-turn navigation.
All Google is really attempting to do is remove the carrier from the equation and offer a direct to consumer experience. By law, mobile carriers must allow any compatible device to run on their networks. Google is providing the phone and will also bundle service plans just as Best Buy and any other retailer does. This will give Google a way to control the platform better. This is more similar to the Windows desktop market, than it is to Microsoft's mobile platforms market, in which they have an incentive to give an advantage towards its own branded hardware versus any licensed competitors.
What are you talking about? to remove the carrier or to bundle service plans means to be either an MVNO or just rolling out your own mobile network. And evidently enough, Google is not in that business. The chain is incomplete without a carrier. They are irreplacable. The customer won't buy a fancy gadget for posterity's sake
Google has already stated that they will offer other phones from other manufacturers in their e-store. This HTC phone is only the first. Furthermore, Google has also made it clear that this is an HTC phone, not a Google branded phone. Let's also not forget that Google worked closely with Motorola and Verizon on the Droid; it was the first device to get Android 2.0 with its turn-by-turn navigation. This type of "favoritism" is going to happen with each new hardware / OS release.
All Google is really attempting to do is remove the carrier from the equation and offer a direct to consumer experience. By law, mobile carriers must allow any compatible device to run on their networks. Google is providing the phone and will also bundle service plans just as Best Buy and any other retailer does. This will give Google a way to control the platform better. This is more similar to the Windows desktop market, than it is to Microsoft's mobile platforms market, in which they have an incentive to give an advantage towards its own branded hardware versus any licensed competitors.
EDIT: Even more differentiating... Android is completely free and open sourced meaning manufacturers or carriers can modify the operating system in any manner they wish; they are not dependent on Google. This was not true of PlaysForSure, Windows Mobile, or Windows CE, where Microsoft controlled the development of the operating system. All Google promised was a free alternative to Windows Mobile to handset makers and wireless carriers.
But that certainly isn't how the whole thing has been perceived. To the public, the Nexus One is the Google Phone. And it's perceived as a Droid killer because Google went the extra mile to make an exemplary handset with their software. Not HTC-- that's not how it's being marketed.
If I were Motorola, whatever input Google had given would be cold comfort right now. Who's talking about Droid now? Nobody. Google gave them about 15 minutes in the sun, then totally preempted their deal. And Motorola really, really needs a successful handset right now.
You might be technically correct about who did what, but perceptions matter, and the perception is pretty clear. Google trumped Motorola with a better phone. Motorola can't be too pleased.
What are you talking about? to remove the carrier or to bundle service plans means to be either an MVNO or just rolling out your own mobile network. And evidently enough, Google is not in that business. The chain is incomplete without a carrier. They are irreplacable. The customer won't buy a fancy gadget for posterity's sake
I'm talking about the carrier getting their hands on the device and OS and modifying it. Removing features and adding their own crap on them, ruining the overall experience. This is what is killing Android as a platform.
Google is taking hardware direct from the manufacturer, putting their OS on it, then selling it direct to the customer. This allows Google to control the experience.
The carrier only comes in to play when a plan is needed/included.
But that certainly isn't how the whole thing has been perceived. To the public, the Nexus One is the Google Phone. And it's perceived as a Droid killer because Google went the extra mile to make an exemplary handset with their software. Not HTC-- that's not how it's being marketed.
If I were Motorola, whatever input Google had given would be cold comfort right now. Who's talking about Droid now? Nobody. Google gave them about 15 minutes in the sun, then totally preempted their deal. And Motorola really, really needs a successful handset right now.
You might be technically correct about who did what, but perceptions matter, and the perception is pretty clear. Google trumped Motorola with a better phone. Motorola can't be too pleased.
Umm, I'm pretty sure Motorola's perception does not match public perception. Google stated it was in fact a HTC handset, not a Google handset. I don't think Motorola gets its information from the headlines, but rather through direct communication with Google. Headlines are not going to tell us that Motorola and Google are currently working on another phone that Google could offer up alongside the Nexus One. And I'm willing to bet that phone will be revealed at about the same time the Nexus One is available on Verizon's network.
I highly doubt that Motorola is unpleased about all of this... although they may be upset with all the morons that have misinterpreted all of this.
EDIT: Nexus One is only available on T-Mobile. So the Motorola Droid is still considered to be the best Android phone available on Verizon. So anyone looking for a good Android phone on Verizon, will be talking about and buying up Droids.
Umm, I'm pretty sure Motorola's perception does not match public perception. Google stated it was in fact a HTC handset, not a Google handset. I don't think Motorola gets its information from the headlines, but rather through direct communication with Google. Headlines are not going to tell us that Motorola and Google are currently working on another phone that Google could offer up alongside the Nexus One. And I'm willing to bet that phone will be revealed at about the same time the Nexus One is available on Verizon's network.
I highly doubt that Motorola is unpleased about all of this... although they may be upset with all the morons that have misinterpreted all of this.
EDIT: Nexus One is only available on T-Mobile. So the Motorola Droid is still considered to be the best Android phone available on Verizon. So anyone looking for a good Android phone on Verizon, will be talking about and buying up Droids.
Well, except perception is everything in consumer electronics. If people think the Nexus One is the best Android phone, then it really doesn't matter what Motorola knows, they still are looking at diminished sales.
The N1 is coming to Verizon soon enough, and while you may be "willing to bet" that Motorola is working with Google to get another phone out there, that doesn't really make any sense. The Droid was released just a few months before the N1, it's not like it's old an busted-- it's just the best phone Motorola could make, with Google's input. Was Google holding something back? Will they "help" Motorola make a phone that's competitive with the N1? Then help HTC best it?
Comments
Microsoft created a closed brand to compete with their licensed brand. Only a moron would stay with a company that would do something like that.
Google hasn't done this...they're just selling phones direct to customers. How does this alienate them from hardware manufacturers exactly?
This isn't nearly the same thing...
Microsoft created a closed brand to compete with their licensed brand. Only a moron would stay with a company that would do something like that.
Google hasn't done this...they're just selling phones direct to customers. How does this alienate them from hardware manufacturers exactly?
It's not as bad, but playing favorites isn't a good way to encourage an ecosystem around Android.
This isn't nearly the same thing...
Microsoft created a closed brand to compete with their licensed brand. Only a moron would stay with a company that would do something like that.
Google hasn't done this...they're just selling phones direct to customers. How does this alienate them from hardware manufacturers exactly?
Because Google is selling hardware and taking a piece of their pie. If you think Motorola isn't pissed that they will be competing with a Google phone on VZW in the coming months, pick up the phone and call them to ask.
Just look at any tv interface, cable interface or for that matter any camera interface and it's mostly unintuitive crap! Or better yet look at one of those 'simple' slide show picture frames and the software is just plain hopeless!
Apple has it right. Google, MS, Dell, Sony, HP have it wrong! Sorry.
Let's build a house were the plumber, electrician, roofer and framer don't have the same set of plans.
Then I went to the VZ store to check out the Moto Droid. The hardware was solid and felt like traditional Moto design. Still the UI and the rest of the software was too complex and not intuitive.
I am not underestimating the competition, but I am not impressed. Sure, GV, etc make the product attractive for niche users. Or folks not with ATT.
Yes, that usually comes from owning 95% of desktop OS market...
That's wrong. It comes from laziness and lack of direction. MS will be profitable for now because they are the standard. Once the web is capable of performing all of the needs of the basic user, then they are in trouble because the web becomes the standard. At that point you'll start to see the average user moving towards Linux and Chrome because it will be good enough.
You may see people also move towards the Apple tablet because it is geared towards this because the OS as we know it know it now will not be the same in ten years.
Dynasties don't last long, espescially in tech where things move so fast.
That's wrong. It comes from laziness and lack of direction. MS will be profitable for now because they are the standard. Once the web is capable of performing all of the needs of the basic user, then they are in trouble because the web becomes the standard. At that point you'll start to see the average user moving towards Linux and Chrome because it will be good enough.
You may see people also move towards the Apple tablet because it is geared towards this because the OS as we know it know it now will not be the same in ten years.
Dynasties don't last long, espescially in tech where things move so fast.
MS will always be strong in its core enterprise market, just like IBM has for 60 years despite its ups and downs. but its Office money machine will slowly dissipate as growing alternatives force continued price cuts. its desktop monopoly will gradually decline too as mobile products of all kinds grow to equal volume - until then one day a Chinese or Indian company brings out a competing desktop OS that takes away its second and third world markets as well. but in the consumer products business, including cloud services and advertising, it will remain what it is today: one of many and usually an also ran.
Like IBM, all that still will produce a lot of profits for decades. but its days of true dominance - a bit more than a decade - are already fading. that couldn't last. it never does.
Even today, Microsoft still maintains two very different client operating systems in its primary offerings
At least three if you include XBox360, which is a distant relative of Windows NT. But there's also Zune's OS which is different from Windows Mobile, and Windows Mobile is going to be pretty fragmented with pre-6.5, 6.5, and 7.0+ versions on the market at once.
In short, Microsoft is saying "Don't screw up all your operating system development like we did." They got Windows 7 more or less right so they're probably not going to suffer Apple-in-the-90's fate, but they're sure not firing on all cylinders.
Microsoft's biggest mistake is wrong timing. Here is what i think they should have done.
The Zune 30 should have been ready to roll in late 04. While they still wouldn't have caught the iTunes, the Zune was mildly popular and had roughly 11% of the market in its prime, the earlier would have been the better.
Nov 05 rolls around. Xbox 360 comes out and Zune Media Player is what is used for playback on the console and looks/functions like the desktop partner (Zune launched nearly a full year after the 360, this really shows MS lack of foresight). To stream you music from PC to 360, Zune desktop software needs to be installed, this now builds it some on PC. Now they have mass awareness of their product and stand a better chance, but thats not how it went down sadly.
So what can they do to turn it around? Well Zune Phone would be nice (no one cares about WinMo, subsequently the same will happen with Zune on WinMo) and have it be its own brand, and with the way their marketshare is falling there isnt a better time to strike than now. Also one has to assume whatever next console from Microsoft will push Zune more heavily for media features.
MS will always be strong in its core enterprise market, just like IBM has for 60 years despite its ups and downs. but its Office money machine will slowly dissipate as growing alternatives force continued price cuts. its desktop monopoly will gradually decline too as mobile products of all kinds grow to equal volume - until then one day a Chinese or Indian company brings out a competing desktop OS that takes away its second and third world markets as well. but in the consumer products business, including cloud services and advertising, it will remain what it is today: one of many and usually an also ran.
Like IBM, all that still will produce a lot of profits for decades. but its days of true dominance - a bit more than a decade - are already fading. that couldn't last. it never does.
And incidentally, Microsoft owns its success as a dominating OS vendor to IBM's mindshare in the enterprise market.
CP/M was a better and more mature OS, and it was licensed just like MS-DOS eventually was. Being "IBM compatible" was a selling-point that made all the difference in the world.
It's not as bad, but playing favorites isn't a good way to encourage an ecosystem around Android.
Because Google is selling hardware and taking a piece of their pie. If you think Motorola isn't pissed that they will be competing with a Google phone on VZW in the coming months, pick up the phone and call them to ask.
Google has already stated that they will offer other phones from other manufacturers in their e-store. This HTC phone is only the first. Furthermore, Google has also made it clear that this is an HTC phone, not a Google branded phone. Let's also not forget that Google worked closely with Motorola and Verizon on the Droid; it was the first device to get Android 2.0 with its turn-by-turn navigation. This type of "favoritism" is going to happen with each new hardware / OS release.
All Google is really attempting to do is remove the carrier from the equation and offer a direct to consumer experience. By law, mobile carriers must allow any compatible device to run on their networks. Google is providing the phone and will also bundle service plans just as Best Buy and any other retailer does. This will give Google a way to control the platform better. This is more similar to the Windows desktop market, than it is to Microsoft's mobile platforms market, in which they have an incentive to give an advantage towards its own branded hardware versus any licensed competitors.
EDIT: Even more differentiating... Android is completely free and open sourced meaning manufacturers or carriers can modify the operating system in any manner they wish; they are not dependent on Google. This was not true of PlaysForSure, Windows Mobile, or Windows CE, where Microsoft controlled the development of the operating system. All Google promised was a free alternative to Windows Mobile to handset makers and wireless carriers.
Because Google is selling hardware and taking a piece of their pie. If you think Motorola isn't pissed that they will be competing with a Google phone on VZW in the coming months, pick up the phone and call them to ask.
And to ease of some pain from Google's back, avoid searching for this on Google - try Yahoo instead
Google has already stated that they will offer other phones from other manufacturers in their e-store. This HTC phone is only the first. Furthermore, Google has also made it clear that this is an HTC phone, not a Google branded phone. Let's also not forget that Google worked closely with Motorola and Verizon on the Droid; it was the first device to get Android 2.0 with its turn-by-turn navigation.
All Google is really attempting to do is remove the carrier from the equation and offer a direct to consumer experience. By law, mobile carriers must allow any compatible device to run on their networks. Google is providing the phone and will also bundle service plans just as Best Buy and any other retailer does. This will give Google a way to control the platform better. This is more similar to the Windows desktop market, than it is to Microsoft's mobile platforms market, in which they have an incentive to give an advantage towards its own branded hardware versus any licensed competitors.
What are you talking about? to remove the carrier or to bundle service plans means to be either an MVNO or just rolling out your own mobile network. And evidently enough, Google is not in that business. The chain is incomplete without a carrier. They are irreplacable. The customer won't buy a fancy gadget for posterity's sake
Google has already stated that they will offer other phones from other manufacturers in their e-store. This HTC phone is only the first. Furthermore, Google has also made it clear that this is an HTC phone, not a Google branded phone. Let's also not forget that Google worked closely with Motorola and Verizon on the Droid; it was the first device to get Android 2.0 with its turn-by-turn navigation. This type of "favoritism" is going to happen with each new hardware / OS release.
All Google is really attempting to do is remove the carrier from the equation and offer a direct to consumer experience. By law, mobile carriers must allow any compatible device to run on their networks. Google is providing the phone and will also bundle service plans just as Best Buy and any other retailer does. This will give Google a way to control the platform better. This is more similar to the Windows desktop market, than it is to Microsoft's mobile platforms market, in which they have an incentive to give an advantage towards its own branded hardware versus any licensed competitors.
EDIT: Even more differentiating... Android is completely free and open sourced meaning manufacturers or carriers can modify the operating system in any manner they wish; they are not dependent on Google. This was not true of PlaysForSure, Windows Mobile, or Windows CE, where Microsoft controlled the development of the operating system. All Google promised was a free alternative to Windows Mobile to handset makers and wireless carriers.
But that certainly isn't how the whole thing has been perceived. To the public, the Nexus One is the Google Phone. And it's perceived as a Droid killer because Google went the extra mile to make an exemplary handset with their software. Not HTC-- that's not how it's being marketed.
If I were Motorola, whatever input Google had given would be cold comfort right now. Who's talking about Droid now? Nobody. Google gave them about 15 minutes in the sun, then totally preempted their deal. And Motorola really, really needs a successful handset right now.
You might be technically correct about who did what, but perceptions matter, and the perception is pretty clear. Google trumped Motorola with a better phone. Motorola can't be too pleased.
Microsoft frets Google's Nexus One will suffer Zune's failure
I don't think MS is "fretting" about it - they're HOPING for it. Who came up with this headline?
What are you talking about? to remove the carrier or to bundle service plans means to be either an MVNO or just rolling out your own mobile network. And evidently enough, Google is not in that business. The chain is incomplete without a carrier. They are irreplacable. The customer won't buy a fancy gadget for posterity's sake
I'm talking about the carrier getting their hands on the device and OS and modifying it. Removing features and adding their own crap on them, ruining the overall experience. This is what is killing Android as a platform.
Google is taking hardware direct from the manufacturer, putting their OS on it, then selling it direct to the customer. This allows Google to control the experience.
The carrier only comes in to play when a plan is needed/included.
But that certainly isn't how the whole thing has been perceived. To the public, the Nexus One is the Google Phone. And it's perceived as a Droid killer because Google went the extra mile to make an exemplary handset with their software. Not HTC-- that's not how it's being marketed.
If I were Motorola, whatever input Google had given would be cold comfort right now. Who's talking about Droid now? Nobody. Google gave them about 15 minutes in the sun, then totally preempted their deal. And Motorola really, really needs a successful handset right now.
You might be technically correct about who did what, but perceptions matter, and the perception is pretty clear. Google trumped Motorola with a better phone. Motorola can't be too pleased.
Umm, I'm pretty sure Motorola's perception does not match public perception. Google stated it was in fact a HTC handset, not a Google handset. I don't think Motorola gets its information from the headlines, but rather through direct communication with Google. Headlines are not going to tell us that Motorola and Google are currently working on another phone that Google could offer up alongside the Nexus One. And I'm willing to bet that phone will be revealed at about the same time the Nexus One is available on Verizon's network.
I highly doubt that Motorola is unpleased about all of this... although they may be upset with all the morons that have misinterpreted all of this.
EDIT: Nexus One is only available on T-Mobile. So the Motorola Droid is still considered to be the best Android phone available on Verizon. So anyone looking for a good Android phone on Verizon, will be talking about and buying up Droids.
Umm, I'm pretty sure Motorola's perception does not match public perception. Google stated it was in fact a HTC handset, not a Google handset. I don't think Motorola gets its information from the headlines, but rather through direct communication with Google. Headlines are not going to tell us that Motorola and Google are currently working on another phone that Google could offer up alongside the Nexus One. And I'm willing to bet that phone will be revealed at about the same time the Nexus One is available on Verizon's network.
I highly doubt that Motorola is unpleased about all of this... although they may be upset with all the morons that have misinterpreted all of this.
EDIT: Nexus One is only available on T-Mobile. So the Motorola Droid is still considered to be the best Android phone available on Verizon. So anyone looking for a good Android phone on Verizon, will be talking about and buying up Droids.
Well, except perception is everything in consumer electronics. If people think the Nexus One is the best Android phone, then it really doesn't matter what Motorola knows, they still are looking at diminished sales.
The N1 is coming to Verizon soon enough, and while you may be "willing to bet" that Motorola is working with Google to get another phone out there, that doesn't really make any sense. The Droid was released just a few months before the N1, it's not like it's old an busted-- it's just the best phone Motorola could make, with Google's input. Was Google holding something back? Will they "help" Motorola make a phone that's competitive with the N1? Then help HTC best it?
How is that going to work?