sounds to me like a lot of you are assuming a hell of a lot...
I doubt Google is going to make the next Nexus a Nexus M simply because they need to show their other OEMs that they aren't going to push Motorola crazily.
We only need to assume one thing:
That it is far easier to play the same game than make radical changes. This is a truism.
Apple playing the same game means one thing in 2011. Samsung playing the same game in 2011 means another thing.
Guess which of these two is in some serious trouble in this new Google/Moto reality with respect to a viable mobile platform?
Put it this way: it's a great thing that Samsung still makes TVs and has supply contracts.
Just need to ask a simple question: What multi-billion dollar international corporation does anyone on this site own or is in control of?
There have already been at least 4 positive things mentioned from this deal:
1.) Google gets a mobile phone manufacturer. This could lead to better integration between the OS and hardware, and a better user experience. It could also scare other phone manufacturers from straying to far off the base Android path resulting in a more cohesive platform.
2.) Google prevents Motorola from suing other Android licensees.
3.) Android now has a ton of patents to aid Android in the legal battles.
4.) Google gets a set-top box manufacturer. This could help Google TV or at least extend Google's reach into the living room which is a space Apple has yet to really make a dent in.
These are all the obvious benefits that acquiring MMI brings to the table. How many less obvious ones do you think there are?
So, if you are Larry -- what would you do (everyone is watching)?
What I would do?
1. Sell the cell phone handset division to the highest bidder (keeping the IP). Certainly RIM and Samsung would have significant interest. This eliminates charges of favoritism to their own phones.
2. Sell any unrelated businesses - like baby monitors and walkie talkies.
3. Install Android on the set-top boxes.
4. Install software on the set-top boxes to monetize the customers' viewing habits.
Now, it might take a while to get the cable companies to agree to the last two, so they might need to offer both the old ones and the new ones for a while, but as long as Google shares the value of the data with the cable companies, they'll eventually go along.
5. Start a research program to find a way to monetize the customers' private information via the other products. For example, instead of standard dumb home wireless phone landlines, make them into smart phones. Small screen, Android, etc.
Google isn't stupid. They're probably looking at implementing those things as we speak.
Just need to ask a simple question: What multi-billion dollar international corporation does anyone on this site own or is in control of?
There have already been at least 4 positive things mentioned from this deal:
1.) Google gets a mobile phone manufacturer. This could lead to better integration between the OS and hardware, and a better user experience. It could also scare other phone manufacturers from straying to far off the base Android path resulting in a more cohesive platform.
2.) Google prevents Motorola from suing other Android licensees.
3.) Android now has a ton of patents to aid Android in the legal battles.
4.) Google gets a set-top box manufacturer. This could help Google TV or at least extend Google's reach into the living room which is a space Apple has yet to really make a dent in.
These are all the obvious benefits that acquiring MMI brings to the table. How many less obvious ones do you think there are?
Did you miss the part where Google has alienated HTC, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, LG, ZTE, etc. by, once again, reaching into direct competition with their partners.
Forget the two-sentence "happy face" press releases for a minute. (Gruber called them the "Stepford Handset Makers". ) Do you think for a second that their Android partners don't realize the ramifications of having Google build their own Google Android hardware to sell to Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T as well as the Asian and European wireless companies? Google tags one preferred hardware manufacturer for each new release of Android. Does anything think that's not going to be the MMI hardware from here on out? Anyone? Bueller?
My guess is that Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, HTC, LG, etc. now know what Apple felt like when they first saw Google had directly copied their pinch-to-zoom design in an Android phone.
Did you miss the part where Google has alienated HTC, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, LG, ZTE, etc. by, once again, reaching into direct competition with their partners.
Forget the two-sentence "happy face" press releases for a minute. (Gruber called them the "Stepford Handset Makers". ) Do you think for a second that their Android partners don't realize the ramifications of having Google build their own Google Android hardware to sell to Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T as well as the Asian and European wireless companies? Google tags one preferred hardware manufacturer for each new release of Android. Does anything think that's not going to be the MMI hardware from here on out? Anyone? Bueller?
My guess is that Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, HTC, LG, etc. now know what Apple felt like when they first saw Google had directly copied their pinch-to-zoom design in an Android phone.
It's going to take time to play out. In the short term, the Android handset makers can't make any significant changes. They're probably talking with Microsoft and possibly HP about FUTURE products, but they have no choice but to continue to push Android today.
If Google has plans to divest itself of the handset business, then the problems all go away. That is why I believe the press releases were all so similar. Google probably told them "don't panic. We have a plan that will ensure that you don't get hurt. Please give us a few weeks and meanwhile, we would appreciate your cooperation. Here are some sample press releases." Considering what's at risk, the handset makers would be incredibly foolish to go on the attack. They're certainly going to wait a few weeks to see what happens.
These 'Android is doomed!' (TM) articles are as comical as the 'Apple is doomed!' articles.
DED seems to be desperate to show that Android is failing. First there was the assertion that Android would never outsell the iPhone. Then the assertion that Android would never outsell iOS. Now the assertion that no Android handset will outsell the iPhone (as if this matters in a contest of operating systems). And now the assertion that Android will fall apart.
Even more bizarre is the assertion that Samsung leaving the Android ecosystem would devastate the Android world. Just look at Nielsen's recent numbers. Android has a 39% marketshare, of which 8% (of the 39%) comes from Samsung. HTC has a higher share at 11 of 39%. Even if Samsung went to zero overnight, Android as a whole would still have larger marketshare than any other operating system.
And that's assuming Samsung could drop Android completely. Of course, that's an impossibility. Samsung has to make phones that sell. And while Bada sells, Samsung's Android sales eclipse its Bada sales. Not just that, the returns (ASP) on its Android lineup is higher. Bada was designed and is being used to differentiate mid-range phones. It's Samsung's entry-level smartphone. Just a step up from a dumbphone. Switching over to this OS would be an utterly moronic move. Could they develop the OS to compete with Android? Sure. But who else would license it from them?
I'm sure, some like DED are eager to see Android fragment and fall apart so that Apple can have an easy time competing against individual companies like Samsung with their own proprietary operating systems. It's not going to happen. The strength of Android is not just about the OS itself. It's about the whole ecosystem, in which Google has a massive role. How useful would an Android phone be without GMail, Maps, Talk, Android Market, etc.? That's what a Bada handset is today. They could improve the OS. But they aren't going to get serious mass adoption without all the other services that make the handset handy. That said, I don't begrudge Samsung at further developing Bada. It's only prudent to do so.
...there is absolutely no room left for #3 in this market. WebOS has seen that firsthand, and MS and Nokia will find out shortly. Just like in the PC days of yesterday, you are either an Apple, or you are not an Apple. Linux is an also ran, which is what I expect Bada, WP7, WebOS etc to all be.
This is not quite like "the PC days of yesterday" - for many reasons. For one, PC's rolled out in the US with a non-existent digital infrastructure that had to be built from scratch for a user base that had to be created. And where a garage-sized company in CA was able to give one of the world's largest enterprises (IBM) a good run for its money.
The mobile revolution is world-wide, rests on what is now the world's largest set of industries and technologies, has any number of well-heeled large players arrayed around the globe and arrives with billions of marketing-susceptible customers hungry to wring out its wares, not all of whom are looking for the same things or operating in the same socio-economic strata.
And that's one of a number of factors.
So while the top tier may boil down to two or three phone/tablet platforms in the near to mid-term (one of which will surely be Apple and the other almost certainly Android), there may well be room for a number of long-term niche players as well to make a few bucks - and one of these may make a break-through which again turns the digital landscape circa 2007-13 upside down in the next revolution.
And where wild cards without a lot of capital, IP or patents in a portfolio (like a Zuckerberg) can also have impact.
And where a post-Ballmer MS might be resurrected much as a consigned-to-the-dustpile company called Apple Computer was.
Etc., etc.
The past is often prologue, but that doesn't mean we can write the history books in advance. As they say in the NFL after an upset, "that's why we still play the games."
Samsung would be a very nice acquisition for Apple, no?
... only if Apple wants to also get into the shipbuilding, financial and aviation industries. Samsung, founded in the late 1930s, is much more than just mobile communication devices.
1) Bada is already relatively successful (as this report points out, more successful than WP7). However, I don't see Bada doing well in Europe/North America. What I think will happen is that Samsung will target Bada towards its Asian markets, while targeting western markets with Android. At some point in the future, they will hope that Bada is mature enough that they can sell them in Europe/North America too.
2) Android is not as open as Google would like you to believe. And the problem with Android, for Samsung, is that their phones will ALWAYS be second class citizens to the Moogle version, so there would be little to no reason for someone to buy a Samsung over a Moogle. Is there any other instance where a company has done well selling products based on a competitor's platform? How much differentiation is it possible to provide, in such an instance?
1) Have you seen the Bada OS? it is essentially Touchwiz. Switching to bada will do nothing to stop the lawsuits, unless apple drops them (which would lend credence to the theory that Apple is attacking android because it's Android, and just for IP violations). Bada also isn't a "smartphone" OS. it's a featurephone os, much like Brew. It has nowhere near the power of a smartphone OS.
2) You're basing Samsungs positions off of an assumption, and assumption largely put forth by people desperately trying to say that Google wants to make android more like iOS when it comes to control. Not only does this run counter to Google's own statements, but it's counter to Google's WHOLE BUSINESS MODEL. Unless you're planning to say that Google will drop out of the internet search/ad business entirely and switch to hardware instead.
And there is no other instance you're asking for because Android is not Symbian, it is Not Zune. The point for android is to get users onto Google Services, services that ARE THE SAME no matter what manufacturer you're on (heck, they're similar on iOS as well).
2) You're basing Samsungs positions off of an assumption, and assumption largely put forth by people desperately trying to say that Google wants to make android more like iOS when it comes to control. Not only does this run counter to Google's own statements, but it's counter to Google's WHOLE BUSINESS MODEL.
A protective order in the case restricts access to the Android source code, limiting the number of people who can review the code and requiring that Microsoft and Motorola "give prior written notice" to Google before showing the source code to a technical advisor. Google is to have 10 days to object.
Microsoft did not do that, Google alleged, as it moved to prevent Stevenson from testifying at the evidentiary hearing slated for later this month.
"The confidential source code improperly provided to Dr. Stevenson is highly proprietary source code that Google does not even share with its partners, such as Motorola," Google said.
In the great mobile-device wars, Google (GOOG) has portrayed itself as the open-source crusader doing battle against the leaders in proprietary software—Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Research In Motion (RIM:CN).
Unlike its rivals, Google makes the underlying code for its popular Android operating system publicly available, and anyone can access it and tailor it for use in mobile phones, tablets, television set-top boxes, even automobiles.
So what happens when Google decides to keep the latest version of its operating system to itself? Android fans are about to find out.
Google says it will delay the distribution of its newest Android source code, dubbed Honeycomb, at least for the foreseeable future. The search giant says the software, which is tailored specifically for tablet computers that compete against Apple's iPad, is not yet ready to be altered by outside programmers and customized for other devices, such as phones.
During a keynote presentation at Google's IO developer conference last year, Google VP of engineering Vic Gundotra proclaimed that the search giant created Android in order to bring freedom to the masses and avoid a "draconian future" in which one company controlled the mobile industry. Looking past the self-congratulatory rhetoric, Android's poor track record on openness is becoming harder to ignore.
The company revealed Thursday that it will delay publication of the Android 3.0 source code for the foreseeable future—possibly for months. It's not clear when (or if) the source code will be made available. The decision puts Android on a path towards a "draconian future" of its own, in which it is controlled by a single vendor—Google.
When Android was first announced, Google's evangelists touted it as an open ecosystem that would enable innovation—a hardware and software reaffirmation of the Carterfone decision. They spoke of a future where users would be free from restrictions and be able to install whatever software they want.
Sadly, those promises were never fulfilled and the dream of an open mobile ecosystem around Android never materialized. In reality, Android has become an insular platform developed almost entirely behind closed doors in an environment that is hostile to external contributors and is mired in a culture of secrecy that serves a small handful of prominent commercial hardware vendors and mobile carriers.
I could do this all day, but I think you get the gist of it.
I could do this all day, but I think you get the gist of it.
You could do it all day, besides for the fact that you'd still be wrong.
1) the Microsoft case could include pre-release software (stuff that is not out to the public yet, like Ice Cream Sandwich) or it could include source code to GApps or the market, which are CLOSED SOURCE. And Google's never said differently.
2) As for Honeycomb:
Motorola has Honeycomb source
Samsung has honeycomb source
HTC has Honeycomb source
Acer has Honeycomb source
Asus has honeycomb source
Vizo has Honeycomb source
as do a good handful of other companies. Basically, EVERY major (and most minor) players have access to the source code, it just wasn't released as AOSP, meaning independent developers (such as Cyanogen) don't have access to the source. Is this a problem? Yes. But it's something that's pointless discussing here as it will just lead to trolls screaming "BUT YOU SAID ITS OPEN". If you want a good critique of the issue, check out several android blogs. Unlike here, they're not afraid to point out problems when they think their OS is headed in the wrong direction, or they think the company misstepped.
They also clarified WHY they didn't release honeycomb (which you ignored linking) and that Ice Cream Sandwich WOULD be AOSP again.
So yes, the assumption that Google will suddenly change the ENTIRE business model of not only ANDROID but their core platform (search/adsense) just because they want to totally control the android ecosystem makes NO sense from Google statements, OR from what would be financially beneficial to them. If they close Android, HTC and Samsung would go to Windows Phone (Samsung would have to do a total rewrite of bada to make it functional) and Google would lose eyeballs. Unless you're trying to imply that Google is dropping the business they've cultivated for over 10 years simply to try and make some money with cellphones.
1. Sell the cell phone handset division to the highest bidder (keeping the IP). Certainly RIM and Samsung would have significant interest. This eliminates charges of favoritism to their own phones.
2. Sell any unrelated businesses - like baby monitors and walkie talkies.
3. Install Android on the set-top boxes.
4. Install software on the set-top boxes to monetize the customers' viewing habits.
Now, it might take a while to get the cable companies to agree to the last two, so they might need to offer both the old ones and the new ones for a while, but as long as Google shares the value of the data with the cable companies, they'll eventually go along.
5. Start a research program to find a way to monetize the customers' private information via the other products. For example, instead of standard dumb home wireless phone landlines, make them into smart phones. Small screen, Android, etc.
Google isn't stupid. They're probably looking at implementing those things as we speak.
Those are good answer... Except I doubt there are buyers for the handset business -- and the others, like baby monitors, won't come close to covering their cost of purchase/sale.
So, it's tHe patents and the STBs -- we all understand the potential of the patents... But, the STBs -- the cablecos are already concerned about Moogle screwing with their content.
You could do it all day, besides for the fact that you'd still be wrong.
1) the Microsoft case could include pre-release software (stuff that is not out to the public yet, like Ice Cream Sandwich) or it could include source code to GApps or the market, which are CLOSED SOURCE. And Google's never said differently.
2) As for Honeycomb:
Motorola has Honeycomb source
Samsung has honeycomb source
HTC has Honeycomb source
Acer has Honeycomb source
Asus has honeycomb source
Vizo has Honeycomb source
as do a good handful of other companies. Basically, EVERY major (and most minor) players have access to the source code, it just wasn't released as AOSP, meaning independent developers (such as Cyanogen) don't have access to the source. Is this a problem? Yes. But it's something that's pointless discussing here as it will just lead to trolls screaming "BUT YOU SAID ITS OPEN". If you want a good critique of the issue, check out several android blogs. Unlike here, they're not afraid to point out problems when they think their OS is headed in the wrong direction, or they think the company misstepped.
They also clarified WHY they didn't release honeycomb (which you ignored linking) and that Ice Cream Sandwich WOULD be AOSP again.
So yes, the assumption that Google will suddenly change the ENTIRE business model of not only ANDROID but their core platform (search/adsense) just because they want to totally control the android ecosystem makes NO sense from Google statements, OR from what would be financially beneficial to them. If they close Android, HTC and Samsung would go to Windows Phone (Samsung would have to do a total rewrite of bada to make it functional) and Google would lose eyeballs. Unless you're trying to imply that Google is dropping the business they've cultivated for over 10 years simply to try and make some money with cellphones.
minor correction. the Honeycomb bits that are covered under the required license have been in aosp for months.
the full OS (the parts that are not fully open upon inception) are unreleased.
Google saying they wanted to release ICS instead of honeycomb to aosp is to protect from manufacturers putting it unoptimized on smartphones.
You could do it all day, besides for the fact that you'd still be wrong.
1) the Microsoft case could include pre-release software (stuff that is not out to the public yet, like Ice Cream Sandwich) or it could include source code to GApps or the market, which are CLOSED SOURCE. And Google's never said differently.
2) As for Honeycomb:
Motorola has Honeycomb source
Samsung has honeycomb source
HTC has Honeycomb source
Acer has Honeycomb source
Asus has honeycomb source
Vizo has Honeycomb source
as do a good handful of other companies. Basically, EVERY major (and most minor) players have access to the source code, it just wasn't released as AOSP, meaning independent developers (such as Cyanogen) don't have access to the source. Is this a problem? Yes. But it's something that's pointless discussing here as it will just lead to trolls screaming "BUT YOU SAID ITS OPEN". If you want a good critique of the issue, check out several android blogs. Unlike here, they're not afraid to point out problems when they think their OS is headed in the wrong direction, or they think the company misstepped.
They also clarified WHY they didn't release honeycomb (which you ignored linking) and that Ice Cream Sandwich WOULD be AOSP again.
So yes, the assumption that Google will suddenly change the ENTIRE business model of not only ANDROID but their core platform (search/adsense) just because they want to totally control the android ecosystem makes NO sense from Google statements, OR from what would be financially beneficial to them. If they close Android, HTC and Samsung would go to Windows Phone (Samsung would have to do a total rewrite of bada to make it functional) and Google would lose eyeballs. Unless you're trying to imply that Google is dropping the business they've cultivated for over 10 years simply to try and make some money with cellphones.
Sooooo. "Open" for the manufacturers. "Open" for a wireless companies. But not "open" for consumers? Is that a new definition of "open"?
And that doesn't address that Honeycomb was only given to one "Winning" (TM) C. Sheen vendor. Who's that "winning" vendor going to be in the future? Motoogle, that's who. They know it, HTC and Samsung knows it, and you'd know it too if you'd disconnect from the hivemind long enough to look at the facts vs. the spin.
Comments
sounds to me like a lot of you are assuming a hell of a lot...
I doubt Google is going to make the next Nexus a Nexus M simply because they need to show their other OEMs that they aren't going to push Motorola crazily.
We only need to assume one thing:
That it is far easier to play the same game than make radical changes. This is a truism.
Apple playing the same game means one thing in 2011. Samsung playing the same game in 2011 means another thing.
Guess which of these two is in some serious trouble in this new Google/Moto reality with respect to a viable mobile platform?
Put it this way: it's a great thing that Samsung still makes TVs and has supply contracts.
There have already been at least 4 positive things mentioned from this deal:
1.) Google gets a mobile phone manufacturer. This could lead to better integration between the OS and hardware, and a better user experience. It could also scare other phone manufacturers from straying to far off the base Android path resulting in a more cohesive platform.
2.) Google prevents Motorola from suing other Android licensees.
3.) Android now has a ton of patents to aid Android in the legal battles.
4.) Google gets a set-top box manufacturer. This could help Google TV or at least extend Google's reach into the living room which is a space Apple has yet to really make a dent in.
These are all the obvious benefits that acquiring MMI brings to the table. How many less obvious ones do you think there are?
Yeah... To all of that!
So, if you are Larry -- what would you do (everyone is watching)?
What I would do?
1. Sell the cell phone handset division to the highest bidder (keeping the IP). Certainly RIM and Samsung would have significant interest. This eliminates charges of favoritism to their own phones.
2. Sell any unrelated businesses - like baby monitors and walkie talkies.
3. Install Android on the set-top boxes.
4. Install software on the set-top boxes to monetize the customers' viewing habits.
Now, it might take a while to get the cable companies to agree to the last two, so they might need to offer both the old ones and the new ones for a while, but as long as Google shares the value of the data with the cable companies, they'll eventually go along.
5. Start a research program to find a way to monetize the customers' private information via the other products. For example, instead of standard dumb home wireless phone landlines, make them into smart phones. Small screen, Android, etc.
Google isn't stupid. They're probably looking at implementing those things as we speak.
Just need to ask a simple question: What multi-billion dollar international corporation does anyone on this site own or is in control of?
There have already been at least 4 positive things mentioned from this deal:
1.) Google gets a mobile phone manufacturer. This could lead to better integration between the OS and hardware, and a better user experience. It could also scare other phone manufacturers from straying to far off the base Android path resulting in a more cohesive platform.
2.) Google prevents Motorola from suing other Android licensees.
3.) Android now has a ton of patents to aid Android in the legal battles.
4.) Google gets a set-top box manufacturer. This could help Google TV or at least extend Google's reach into the living room which is a space Apple has yet to really make a dent in.
These are all the obvious benefits that acquiring MMI brings to the table. How many less obvious ones do you think there are?
Did you miss the part where Google has alienated HTC, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, LG, ZTE, etc. by, once again, reaching into direct competition with their partners.
Forget the two-sentence "happy face" press releases for a minute. (Gruber called them the "Stepford Handset Makers".
My guess is that Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, HTC, LG, etc. now know what Apple felt like when they first saw Google had directly copied their pinch-to-zoom design in an Android phone.
Did you miss the part where Google has alienated HTC, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, LG, ZTE, etc. by, once again, reaching into direct competition with their partners.
Forget the two-sentence "happy face" press releases for a minute. (Gruber called them the "Stepford Handset Makers".
My guess is that Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, HTC, LG, etc. now know what Apple felt like when they first saw Google had directly copied their pinch-to-zoom design in an Android phone.
It's going to take time to play out. In the short term, the Android handset makers can't make any significant changes. They're probably talking with Microsoft and possibly HP about FUTURE products, but they have no choice but to continue to push Android today.
If Google has plans to divest itself of the handset business, then the problems all go away. That is why I believe the press releases were all so similar. Google probably told them "don't panic. We have a plan that will ensure that you don't get hurt. Please give us a few weeks and meanwhile, we would appreciate your cooperation. Here are some sample press releases." Considering what's at risk, the handset makers would be incredibly foolish to go on the attack. They're certainly going to wait a few weeks to see what happens.
DED seems to be desperate to show that Android is failing. First there was the assertion that Android would never outsell the iPhone. Then the assertion that Android would never outsell iOS. Now the assertion that no Android handset will outsell the iPhone (as if this matters in a contest of operating systems). And now the assertion that Android will fall apart.
Even more bizarre is the assertion that Samsung leaving the Android ecosystem would devastate the Android world. Just look at Nielsen's recent numbers. Android has a 39% marketshare, of which 8% (of the 39%) comes from Samsung. HTC has a higher share at 11 of 39%. Even if Samsung went to zero overnight, Android as a whole would still have larger marketshare than any other operating system.
And that's assuming Samsung could drop Android completely. Of course, that's an impossibility. Samsung has to make phones that sell. And while Bada sells, Samsung's Android sales eclipse its Bada sales. Not just that, the returns (ASP) on its Android lineup is higher. Bada was designed and is being used to differentiate mid-range phones. It's Samsung's entry-level smartphone. Just a step up from a dumbphone. Switching over to this OS would be an utterly moronic move. Could they develop the OS to compete with Android? Sure. But who else would license it from them?
I'm sure, some like DED are eager to see Android fragment and fall apart so that Apple can have an easy time competing against individual companies like Samsung with their own proprietary operating systems. It's not going to happen. The strength of Android is not just about the OS itself. It's about the whole ecosystem, in which Google has a massive role. How useful would an Android phone be without GMail, Maps, Talk, Android Market, etc.? That's what a Bada handset is today. They could improve the OS. But they aren't going to get serious mass adoption without all the other services that make the handset handy. That said, I don't begrudge Samsung at further developing Bada. It's only prudent to do so.
...there is absolutely no room left for #3 in this market. WebOS has seen that firsthand, and MS and Nokia will find out shortly. Just like in the PC days of yesterday, you are either an Apple, or you are not an Apple. Linux is an also ran, which is what I expect Bada, WP7, WebOS etc to all be.
This is not quite like "the PC days of yesterday" - for many reasons. For one, PC's rolled out in the US with a non-existent digital infrastructure that had to be built from scratch for a user base that had to be created. And where a garage-sized company in CA was able to give one of the world's largest enterprises (IBM) a good run for its money.
The mobile revolution is world-wide, rests on what is now the world's largest set of industries and technologies, has any number of well-heeled large players arrayed around the globe and arrives with billions of marketing-susceptible customers hungry to wring out its wares, not all of whom are looking for the same things or operating in the same socio-economic strata.
And that's one of a number of factors.
So while the top tier may boil down to two or three phone/tablet platforms in the near to mid-term (one of which will surely be Apple and the other almost certainly Android), there may well be room for a number of long-term niche players as well to make a few bucks - and one of these may make a break-through which again turns the digital landscape circa 2007-13 upside down in the next revolution.
And where wild cards without a lot of capital, IP or patents in a portfolio (like a Zuckerberg) can also have impact.
And where a post-Ballmer MS might be resurrected much as a consigned-to-the-dustpile company called Apple Computer was.
Etc., etc.
The past is often prologue, but that doesn't mean we can write the history books in advance. As they say in the NFL after an upset, "that's why we still play the games."
Samsung would be a very nice acquisition for Apple, no?
... only if Apple wants to also get into the shipbuilding, financial and aviation industries. Samsung, founded in the late 1930s, is much more than just mobile communication devices.
1) Bada is already relatively successful (as this report points out, more successful than WP7). However, I don't see Bada doing well in Europe/North America. What I think will happen is that Samsung will target Bada towards its Asian markets, while targeting western markets with Android. At some point in the future, they will hope that Bada is mature enough that they can sell them in Europe/North America too.
2) Android is not as open as Google would like you to believe. And the problem with Android, for Samsung, is that their phones will ALWAYS be second class citizens to the Moogle version, so there would be little to no reason for someone to buy a Samsung over a Moogle. Is there any other instance where a company has done well selling products based on a competitor's platform? How much differentiation is it possible to provide, in such an instance?
1) Have you seen the Bada OS? it is essentially Touchwiz. Switching to bada will do nothing to stop the lawsuits, unless apple drops them (which would lend credence to the theory that Apple is attacking android because it's Android, and just for IP violations). Bada also isn't a "smartphone" OS. it's a featurephone os, much like Brew. It has nowhere near the power of a smartphone OS.
2) You're basing Samsungs positions off of an assumption, and assumption largely put forth by people desperately trying to say that Google wants to make android more like iOS when it comes to control. Not only does this run counter to Google's own statements, but it's counter to Google's WHOLE BUSINESS MODEL. Unless you're planning to say that Google will drop out of the internet search/ad business entirely and switch to hardware instead.
And there is no other instance you're asking for because Android is not Symbian, it is Not Zune. The point for android is to get users onto Google Services, services that ARE THE SAME no matter what manufacturer you're on (heck, they're similar on iOS as well).
2) You're basing Samsungs positions off of an assumption, and assumption largely put forth by people desperately trying to say that Google wants to make android more like iOS when it comes to control. Not only does this run counter to Google's own statements, but it's counter to Google's WHOLE BUSINESS MODEL.
Open, oh, uh, except when it's not...
Google claims Microsoft improperly showed Android code to expert: (computerworld.com)
A protective order in the case restricts access to the Android source code, limiting the number of people who can review the code and requiring that Microsoft and Motorola "give prior written notice" to Google before showing the source code to a technical advisor. Google is to have 10 days to object.
Microsoft did not do that, Google alleged, as it moved to prevent Stevenson from testifying at the evidentiary hearing slated for later this month.
"The confidential source code improperly provided to Dr. Stevenson is highly proprietary source code that Google does not even share with its partners, such as Motorola," Google said.
Google Holds Honeycomb Tight: (businessweek.com)
In the great mobile-device wars, Google (GOOG) has portrayed itself as the open-source crusader doing battle against the leaders in proprietary software—Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Research In Motion (RIM:CN).
Unlike its rivals, Google makes the underlying code for its popular Android operating system publicly available, and anyone can access it and tailor it for use in mobile phones, tablets, television set-top boxes, even automobiles.
So what happens when Google decides to keep the latest version of its operating system to itself? Android fans are about to find out.
Google says it will delay the distribution of its newest Android source code, dubbed Honeycomb, at least for the foreseeable future. The search giant says the software, which is tailored specifically for tablet computers that compete against Apple's iPad, is not yet ready to be altered by outside programmers and customized for other devices, such as phones.
Android openness withering as Google withholds Honeycomb code: (arstechnica.com)
During a keynote presentation at Google's IO developer conference last year, Google VP of engineering Vic Gundotra proclaimed that the search giant created Android in order to bring freedom to the masses and avoid a "draconian future" in which one company controlled the mobile industry. Looking past the self-congratulatory rhetoric, Android's poor track record on openness is becoming harder to ignore.
The company revealed Thursday that it will delay publication of the Android 3.0 source code for the foreseeable future—possibly for months. It's not clear when (or if) the source code will be made available. The decision puts Android on a path towards a "draconian future" of its own, in which it is controlled by a single vendor—Google.
When Android was first announced, Google's evangelists touted it as an open ecosystem that would enable innovation—a hardware and software reaffirmation of the Carterfone decision. They spoke of a future where users would be free from restrictions and be able to install whatever software they want.
Sadly, those promises were never fulfilled and the dream of an open mobile ecosystem around Android never materialized. In reality, Android has become an insular platform developed almost entirely behind closed doors in an environment that is hostile to external contributors and is mired in a culture of secrecy that serves a small handful of prominent commercial hardware vendors and mobile carriers.
I could do this all day, but I think you get the gist of it.
Open, oh, uh, except when it's not...
Google claims Microsoft improperly showed Android code to expert: (computerworld.com)
Google Holds Honeycomb Tight: (businessweek.com)
Android openness withering as Google withholds Honeycomb code: (arstechnica.com)
I could do this all day, but I think you get the gist of it.
You could do it all day, besides for the fact that you'd still be wrong.
1) the Microsoft case could include pre-release software (stuff that is not out to the public yet, like Ice Cream Sandwich) or it could include source code to GApps or the market, which are CLOSED SOURCE. And Google's never said differently.
2) As for Honeycomb:
Motorola has Honeycomb source
Samsung has honeycomb source
HTC has Honeycomb source
Acer has Honeycomb source
Asus has honeycomb source
Vizo has Honeycomb source
as do a good handful of other companies. Basically, EVERY major (and most minor) players have access to the source code, it just wasn't released as AOSP, meaning independent developers (such as Cyanogen) don't have access to the source. Is this a problem? Yes. But it's something that's pointless discussing here as it will just lead to trolls screaming "BUT YOU SAID ITS OPEN". If you want a good critique of the issue, check out several android blogs. Unlike here, they're not afraid to point out problems when they think their OS is headed in the wrong direction, or they think the company misstepped.
They also clarified WHY they didn't release honeycomb (which you ignored linking) and that Ice Cream Sandwich WOULD be AOSP again.
So yes, the assumption that Google will suddenly change the ENTIRE business model of not only ANDROID but their core platform (search/adsense) just because they want to totally control the android ecosystem makes NO sense from Google statements, OR from what would be financially beneficial to them. If they close Android, HTC and Samsung would go to Windows Phone (Samsung would have to do a total rewrite of bada to make it functional) and Google would lose eyeballs. Unless you're trying to imply that Google is dropping the business they've cultivated for over 10 years simply to try and make some money with cellphones.
What I would do?
1. Sell the cell phone handset division to the highest bidder (keeping the IP). Certainly RIM and Samsung would have significant interest. This eliminates charges of favoritism to their own phones.
2. Sell any unrelated businesses - like baby monitors and walkie talkies.
3. Install Android on the set-top boxes.
4. Install software on the set-top boxes to monetize the customers' viewing habits.
Now, it might take a while to get the cable companies to agree to the last two, so they might need to offer both the old ones and the new ones for a while, but as long as Google shares the value of the data with the cable companies, they'll eventually go along.
5. Start a research program to find a way to monetize the customers' private information via the other products. For example, instead of standard dumb home wireless phone landlines, make them into smart phones. Small screen, Android, etc.
Google isn't stupid. They're probably looking at implementing those things as we speak.
Those are good answer... Except I doubt there are buyers for the handset business -- and the others, like baby monitors, won't come close to covering their cost of purchase/sale.
So, it's tHe patents and the STBs -- we all understand the potential of the patents... But, the STBs -- the cablecos are already concerned about Moogle screwing with their content.
You could do it all day, besides for the fact that you'd still be wrong.
1) the Microsoft case could include pre-release software (stuff that is not out to the public yet, like Ice Cream Sandwich) or it could include source code to GApps or the market, which are CLOSED SOURCE. And Google's never said differently.
2) As for Honeycomb:
Motorola has Honeycomb source
Samsung has honeycomb source
HTC has Honeycomb source
Acer has Honeycomb source
Asus has honeycomb source
Vizo has Honeycomb source
as do a good handful of other companies. Basically, EVERY major (and most minor) players have access to the source code, it just wasn't released as AOSP, meaning independent developers (such as Cyanogen) don't have access to the source. Is this a problem? Yes. But it's something that's pointless discussing here as it will just lead to trolls screaming "BUT YOU SAID ITS OPEN". If you want a good critique of the issue, check out several android blogs. Unlike here, they're not afraid to point out problems when they think their OS is headed in the wrong direction, or they think the company misstepped.
They also clarified WHY they didn't release honeycomb (which you ignored linking) and that Ice Cream Sandwich WOULD be AOSP again.
So yes, the assumption that Google will suddenly change the ENTIRE business model of not only ANDROID but their core platform (search/adsense) just because they want to totally control the android ecosystem makes NO sense from Google statements, OR from what would be financially beneficial to them. If they close Android, HTC and Samsung would go to Windows Phone (Samsung would have to do a total rewrite of bada to make it functional) and Google would lose eyeballs. Unless you're trying to imply that Google is dropping the business they've cultivated for over 10 years simply to try and make some money with cellphones.
minor correction. the Honeycomb bits that are covered under the required license have been in aosp for months.
the full OS (the parts that are not fully open upon inception) are unreleased.
Google saying they wanted to release ICS instead of honeycomb to aosp is to protect from manufacturers putting it unoptimized on smartphones.
You could do it all day, besides for the fact that you'd still be wrong.
1) the Microsoft case could include pre-release software (stuff that is not out to the public yet, like Ice Cream Sandwich) or it could include source code to GApps or the market, which are CLOSED SOURCE. And Google's never said differently.
2) As for Honeycomb:
Motorola has Honeycomb source
Samsung has honeycomb source
HTC has Honeycomb source
Acer has Honeycomb source
Asus has honeycomb source
Vizo has Honeycomb source
as do a good handful of other companies. Basically, EVERY major (and most minor) players have access to the source code, it just wasn't released as AOSP, meaning independent developers (such as Cyanogen) don't have access to the source. Is this a problem? Yes. But it's something that's pointless discussing here as it will just lead to trolls screaming "BUT YOU SAID ITS OPEN". If you want a good critique of the issue, check out several android blogs. Unlike here, they're not afraid to point out problems when they think their OS is headed in the wrong direction, or they think the company misstepped.
They also clarified WHY they didn't release honeycomb (which you ignored linking) and that Ice Cream Sandwich WOULD be AOSP again.
So yes, the assumption that Google will suddenly change the ENTIRE business model of not only ANDROID but their core platform (search/adsense) just because they want to totally control the android ecosystem makes NO sense from Google statements, OR from what would be financially beneficial to them. If they close Android, HTC and Samsung would go to Windows Phone (Samsung would have to do a total rewrite of bada to make it functional) and Google would lose eyeballs. Unless you're trying to imply that Google is dropping the business they've cultivated for over 10 years simply to try and make some money with cellphones.
Sooooo. "Open" for the manufacturers. "Open" for a wireless companies. But not "open" for consumers? Is that a new definition of "open"?
You might've missed my first link:
https://twitter.com/#!/Arubin/status/27808662429
And that doesn't address that Honeycomb was only given to one "Winning" (TM) C. Sheen vendor. Who's that "winning" vendor going to be in the future? Motoogle, that's who. They know it, HTC and Samsung knows it, and you'd know it too if you'd disconnect from the hivemind long enough to look at the facts vs. the spin.