[quote]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.[/quote]
The license issue doesn't really apply. Glibc is LGPL, not GPL. However, glibc is massive in size (especially with locale support compiled in).
A. Making Chromecast from. Chrome os would be needlessly complicated when they could strip down google tv which is built on ANDROID.
B. I Highly doubt they would let one man influence one of the world's largest acquisitions for a fleeting idea that wasnt thought out. No one has 12.5 billion to throw away... Motorola has a portfolio of 24,500 patents and patent applications that instantly bolsters Google's strength in the IP war
To help you understand:apple sued samsung, visa versa, Microsoft sued htc etc etc but no one is suing Microsoft, why? Because they hang their patents out for everyone to see and it was a brilliant move to make a public library of their thousands of patents to avoid such litigation. They saved millions this way.
This article is based on some truth and some apple fan boy garbage. I would love to read an android vs apple article that is not biased. I wont hold my breath.
Android won't be going anywhere, not while chrome os is in the background k ground anyway. I wouldn't buy a chrome os phone though, if that happened I might actually get an iPhone.
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.
While Google's mouth may say "commitment to Android," Google's commitment to nearly everything they have done outside of it's search business is public knowledge: Google doesn't stay committed to anything... Google is like an ADD child and likely to become bored with its new "shiny" diversion. Android and chrome -- no exception. As the article explains; first the updates get fewer per year then they begin to miss their release dates... The "Chrome" project will be similar.
The whole OS thing has cost Google dearly. Not just in money and as a distraction of management from their cash cow, but has permanently cost Google many business partners, most notably Apple. The Android experiment has even caused some once-friendly companies to actively undercut Google's ability to collect search-engine user data while also going head-to-head against Google in replacing Google's apps on non-android phones and tablets.
The thing about all these Google products is the fact that Google are an advert company specialising in software.
Apple are a hardware company specialising in design.
With those maps Apple are only waking up to the fact that software design makes or breaks a product.
Apple had woke up to the fact Google can't be trusted with Apple's customer's data. The less Google sees, the better. The less Google apps on your iDevice, the better.
In addition, Google deliberately went into competition to Apple with Apple's core product categories. Apple does not need to show its competitor's name in apps on Apple's home screen. Marginalize your competition. Diminish their strength. Compete with them on their home turf in advertising dollars. Give no quarter.
Andy Rubin has been moved to a separate team where he manages no one. He's in google purgatory. He's on his way out the door. It's all about Chrome now which it should've been in the first place.
I'm trying to think of a major pet tech product that wasn't already a core product surviving the managing executive getting the axe. Core meaning generating a significant percentage of the company profit.
Android won't suffer the same fate as Palm or Newton since its a major product line but expect all the new initiatives to be Chrome based and Android withers on the vine.
Allard got nuked by Sinofski and courier never even saw the light of day. These kinds of examples are common and you can judge the future of a product based on which exec got what.
Giving Android to the rival Chrome exec was like giving Rubin's daughter to Cinderella's evil step mom to raise.
As much as I'd love for this to be true, I think it may be too great a leap from the evidence presented to the conclusion drawn. It seems like there might be some rebranding at work and possibly weeding the code garden a little, but is that the same as dumping Android?
Wouldn't it be cool if Google decided not to develop their own OS outside of whatever they need to operate their core web offerings like Gmail et al, made nice with Apple and the two got together on Siri's search options and map source data?
Then we could all get on our unicorns and ride to the moon!
I like the tone of the above article better, even if it is pretty old. Also, it takes into consideration the fact that we are here in the world of local applications, and the path to a web-based, (or perhaps thin client,) computing paradigm is not entirely certain. We are starting to see hesitant movements in this direction, but they are anything but robust. I think there are monumental issues with this evolutionary shift, and it isn't going to happen overnight. It's all well and good to run simplified text editing or basic photo editing software in a browser, but these things aren't going to replace, so much as compliment, traditional (local) applications until the frameworks are much more mature, and capable (think Java applet or HTML5... how do these, as yet, address themselves to robust programs?) I think if Android is replaced with a Chrome web-based paradigm, it will not happen far out of step with iOS being replaced with something similar. That is, the benefits of web-based applications will have to be self-evident and superior before we will see this transition taking place on a global, OS, scale. When will that be?
Eventually, you'd have to guess. Instant updates, hardware-independent services/apps, instant synchronization, portability... there are many benefits once the detriments are worked out (looking at you, ISPs.) Some of those hurdles are anything but simple, however. I would say don't hold your breath just yet.
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.
The TV is the perfect platform for web apps. There are hundreds of millions of TVs that can serve as a monitor for serving up web apps. The TV is usually in a fixed place with wifi access. So spending $35 to make your TV a computer makes a lot of sense. I've always been of the opinion that web apps were stupid and inferior to a real computer. I'm changing my stance with regard to TVs. This is a brilliant strategic move on Google's part. Everyone already owns a $1,000-$2,000 monitor. For $35 you can make it a ChromeOS PC.
The article misses the mark. I don't think Google is ditching Android. I think they want to create a new TV platform and chromeOS is a better tool than Android. That doesn't mean ChromeOS is suddenly the preferred OS for mobile. I think AI called this one wrong.
EDIT: My comment isn't really about this article in particular, it's more in response to a recurring theme I've picked up on in Daniel's writing.
It must be rough to base a career off the reputation of being an Apple apologist. Sure there's advantages like getting chummy with Apple executives and people inside the company, but can it really be worth forcing yourself to believe crazy, wrong things? I'd hate myself if my ideology made me believe that everything Apple's competitors do is either incompetent, inferior, or malicious. Especially when Google, for example, is doing so many cool things. Maybe Daniel is not aware of this, but it is possible to love Apple and entertain critical thoughts about them. And just because they make great products doesn't mean others can't too.
Maybe Daniel is not aware of this, but it is possible to love Apple and entertain critical thoughts about them. And just because they make great products doesn't mean others can't too.
Is it possible to entertain critical thoughts about Apple's competitors without being labeled an Apple apologist?
EDIT: My comment isn't really about this article in particular, it's more in response to a recurring theme I've picked up on in Daniel's writing.
It must be rough to base a career off the reputation of being an Apple apologist. Sure there's advantages like getting chummy with Apple executives and people inside the company, but can it really be worth forcing yourself to believe crazy, wrong things? I'd hate myself if my ideology made me believe that everything Apple's competitors do is either incompetent, inferior, or malicious. Especially when Google, for example, is doing so many cool things. Maybe Daniel is not aware of this, but it is possible to love Apple and entertain critical thoughts about them. And just because they make great products doesn't mean others can't too.
Blasphemy!!! - J/K .. Im gonna get stoned for poking at Apple's Prophet.
The TV is the perfect platform for web apps.
...
This is a brilliant strategic move on Google's part. Everyone already owns a $1,000-$2,000 monitor. For $35 you can make it a ChromeOS PC.
This would be brilliant if true. Unfortunately not so much. Chromebooks aren't $200 because of the display. Even the dual core exynos 5 is sluggish at times running webapps.
Good webapp performance requires more CPU and RAM than lives inside $35 stick computers at the moment. The chromecast appears to me to have optimized hardware for video playback which is cool and all but a $50 roku is still hugely a much better deal.
For presentations it might be cool. But only with better cast support from office apps on android and iOS.
Meh, if it supported Airplay it would be worthwhile.
"Apple had woke up to the fact Google can't be trusted with Apple's customer's data. "
I think that t long term, Apple want 100% of the advert money. Nothing comes cheap and getting nearer nothing from adverts was not making shareholders happy. I also now sense that some of Jobs anger centres round the fact that you can't easily hide NSA stuff in Android.
The death of Android is something I'd certainly like to see. Not because I dislike Android OS or even Google that badly. I'd like to see the death of Android destroy the hedge funds who have leveraged Android to hold down Apple's share price and who continually claim that Apple has no future growth due to Android. It would really put those greedy hedge funds in a quandary. I naturally blame Google for unleashing a free OS on the smartphone world for the sake of trying to destroy Apple's iPhone empire when they really didn't need to do it that way. Google could have licensed Android to a number of companies for a fair price and at least had some control over it.
It's just totally ridiculous to see a hundred companies churning out Android devices without the least bit of control each trying to undercut the other in price and quality. Google should have stuck to the search engine and ad business and left the smartphone business to others. The world doesn't need hundreds of models of smartphones. I honestly don't see what Google is getting out of Android. Is Android even delivering ads to consumers that well?
The death of Android is something I'd certainly like to see. Not because I dislike Android OS or even Google that badly. I'd like to see the death of Android destroy the hedge funds who have leveraged Android to hold down Apple's share price and who continually claim that Apple has no future growth due to Android. It would really put those greedy hedge funds in a quandary. I naturally blame Google for unleashing a free OS on the smartphone world for the sake of trying to destroy Apple's iPhone empire when they really didn't need to do it that way. Google could have licensed Android to a number of companies for a fair price and at least had some control over it.
It's just totally ridiculous to see a hundred companies churning out Android devices without the least bit of control each trying to undercut the other in price and quality. Google should have stuck to the search engine and ad business and left the smartphone business to others. The world doesn't need hundreds of models of smartphones. I honestly don't see what Google is getting out of Android. Is Android even delivering ads to consumers that well?
You're an enigma wrapped in a riddle, deep fried in mystery oil.
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
Google has proved itself in the last few years not to be shy about abandoning projects in the face of widespread consumer and developer dismay - Orkut, Wave, Reader, iGoogle to come soon - the list appears to be escalating in terms of usage numbers and popularity.
This is one aspect in which Mountain View seems to parallel Steve Jobs philosophy to the letter - deciding when it's time to kill, time to die...
All I know is if I were an Android-only developer, I'd cover all my bases by investing in other platforms - JavaME especially, since it is the closest relation to Android, and would benefit from a mass exodus of Java developers should Android suddenly bow out of the scene. A look up the software stack to Chrome and HTML5 would not go awry either, if that's where Google is headed.
Comments
The license issue doesn't really apply. Glibc is LGPL, not GPL.
However, glibc is massive in size (especially with locale support compiled in).
B. I Highly doubt they would let one man influence one of the world's largest acquisitions for a fleeting idea that wasnt thought out. No one has 12.5 billion to throw away... Motorola has a portfolio of 24,500 patents and patent applications that instantly bolsters Google's strength in the IP war
To help you understand:apple sued samsung, visa versa, Microsoft sued htc etc etc but no one is suing Microsoft, why? Because they hang their patents out for everyone to see and it was a brilliant move to make a public library of their thousands of patents to avoid such litigation. They saved millions this way.
This article is based on some truth and some apple fan boy garbage. I would love to read an android vs apple article that is not biased. I wont hold my breath.
Android won't be going anywhere, not while chrome os is in the background k ground anyway. I wouldn't buy a chrome os phone though, if that happened I might actually get an iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
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.
While Google's mouth may say "commitment to Android," Google's commitment to nearly everything they have done outside of it's search business is public knowledge: Google doesn't stay committed to anything... Google is like an ADD child and likely to become bored with its new "shiny" diversion. Android and chrome -- no exception. As the article explains; first the updates get fewer per year then they begin to miss their release dates... The "Chrome" project will be similar.
The whole OS thing has cost Google dearly. Not just in money and as a distraction of management from their cash cow, but has permanently cost Google many business partners, most notably Apple. The Android experiment has even caused some once-friendly companies to actively undercut Google's ability to collect search-engine user data while also going head-to-head against Google in replacing Google's apps on non-android phones and tablets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
The thing about all these Google products is the fact that Google are an advert company specialising in software.
Apple are a hardware company specialising in design.
With those maps Apple are only waking up to the fact that software design makes or breaks a product.
Apple had woke up to the fact Google can't be trusted with Apple's customer's data. The less Google sees, the better. The less Google apps on your iDevice, the better.
In addition, Google deliberately went into competition to Apple with Apple's core product categories. Apple does not need to show its competitor's name in apps on Apple's home screen. Marginalize your competition. Diminish their strength. Compete with them on their home turf in advertising dollars. Give no quarter.
I'm trying to think of a major pet tech product that wasn't already a core product surviving the managing executive getting the axe. Core meaning generating a significant percentage of the company profit.
Android won't suffer the same fate as Palm or Newton since its a major product line but expect all the new initiatives to be Chrome based and Android withers on the vine.
Allard got nuked by Sinofski and courier never even saw the light of day. These kinds of examples are common and you can judge the future of a product based on which exec got what.
Giving Android to the rival Chrome exec was like giving Rubin's daughter to Cinderella's evil step mom to raise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA
Best part of the whole article:
Danger, will Rubin son!
Worst part?
"its" vs. "it's"; "desert" vs. "dessert".
Its as in possessive. It's correct.
As much as I'd love for this to be true, I think it may be too great a leap from the evidence presented to the conclusion drawn. It seems like there might be some rebranding at work and possibly weeding the code garden a little, but is that the same as dumping Android?
Wouldn't it be cool if Google decided not to develop their own OS outside of whatever they need to operate their core web offerings like Gmail et al, made nice with Apple and the two got together on Siri's search options and map source data?
Then we could all get on our unicorns and ride to the moon!
I like the tone of the above article better, even if it is pretty old. Also, it takes into consideration the fact that we are here in the world of local applications, and the path to a web-based, (or perhaps thin client,) computing paradigm is not entirely certain. We are starting to see hesitant movements in this direction, but they are anything but robust. I think there are monumental issues with this evolutionary shift, and it isn't going to happen overnight. It's all well and good to run simplified text editing or basic photo editing software in a browser, but these things aren't going to replace, so much as compliment, traditional (local) applications until the frameworks are much more mature, and capable (think Java applet or HTML5... how do these, as yet, address themselves to robust programs?) I think if Android is replaced with a Chrome web-based paradigm, it will not happen far out of step with iOS being replaced with something similar. That is, the benefits of web-based applications will have to be self-evident and superior before we will see this transition taking place on a global, OS, scale. When will that be?
Eventually, you'd have to guess. Instant updates, hardware-independent services/apps, instant synchronization, portability... there are many benefits once the detriments are worked out (looking at you, ISPs.) Some of those hurdles are anything but simple, however. I would say don't hold your breath just yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
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.
The TV is the perfect platform for web apps. There are hundreds of millions of TVs that can serve as a monitor for serving up web apps. The TV is usually in a fixed place with wifi access. So spending $35 to make your TV a computer makes a lot of sense. I've always been of the opinion that web apps were stupid and inferior to a real computer. I'm changing my stance with regard to TVs. This is a brilliant strategic move on Google's part. Everyone already owns a $1,000-$2,000 monitor. For $35 you can make it a ChromeOS PC.
The article misses the mark. I don't think Google is ditching Android. I think they want to create a new TV platform and chromeOS is a better tool than Android. That doesn't mean ChromeOS is suddenly the preferred OS for mobile. I think AI called this one wrong.
EDIT: My comment isn't really about this article in particular, it's more in response to a recurring theme I've picked up on in Daniel's writing.
It must be rough to base a career off the reputation of being an Apple apologist. Sure there's advantages like getting chummy with Apple executives and people inside the company, but can it really be worth forcing yourself to believe crazy, wrong things? I'd hate myself if my ideology made me believe that everything Apple's competitors do is either incompetent, inferior, or malicious. Especially when Google, for example, is doing so many cool things. Maybe Daniel is not aware of this, but it is possible to love Apple and entertain critical thoughts about them. And just because they make great products doesn't mean others can't too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJLeuer
Maybe Daniel is not aware of this, but it is possible to love Apple and entertain critical thoughts about them. And just because they make great products doesn't mean others can't too.
Is it possible to entertain critical thoughts about Apple's competitors without being labeled an Apple apologist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJLeuer
EDIT: My comment isn't really about this article in particular, it's more in response to a recurring theme I've picked up on in Daniel's writing.
It must be rough to base a career off the reputation of being an Apple apologist. Sure there's advantages like getting chummy with Apple executives and people inside the company, but can it really be worth forcing yourself to believe crazy, wrong things? I'd hate myself if my ideology made me believe that everything Apple's competitors do is either incompetent, inferior, or malicious. Especially when Google, for example, is doing so many cool things. Maybe Daniel is not aware of this, but it is possible to love Apple and entertain critical thoughts about them. And just because they make great products doesn't mean others can't too.
Blasphemy!!! - J/K .. Im gonna get stoned for poking at Apple's Prophet.
This would be brilliant if true. Unfortunately not so much. Chromebooks aren't $200 because of the display. Even the dual core exynos 5 is sluggish at times running webapps.
Good webapp performance requires more CPU and RAM than lives inside $35 stick computers at the moment. The chromecast appears to me to have optimized hardware for video playback which is cool and all but a $50 roku is still hugely a much better deal.
For presentations it might be cool. But only with better cast support from office apps on android and iOS.
Meh, if it supported Airplay it would be worthwhile.
I still remember that speech Eric Shmidth have at the 2007 iPhone launch, that Apple and Google should merge and be called AppleGoo.
Sad since then the 2 have drifted apart.
I think that t long term, Apple want 100% of the advert money.
Nothing comes cheap and getting nearer nothing from adverts was not making shareholders happy.
I also now sense that some of Jobs anger centres round the fact that you can't easily hide NSA stuff in Android.
It's just totally ridiculous to see a hundred companies churning out Android devices without the least bit of control each trying to undercut the other in price and quality. Google should have stuck to the search engine and ad business and left the smartphone business to others. The world doesn't need hundreds of models of smartphones. I honestly don't see what Google is getting out of Android. Is Android even delivering ads to consumers that well?
You're an enigma wrapped in a riddle, deep fried in mystery oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
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
Google has proved itself in the last few years not to be shy about abandoning projects in the face of widespread consumer and developer dismay - Orkut, Wave, Reader, iGoogle to come soon - the list appears to be escalating in terms of usage numbers and popularity.
This is one aspect in which Mountain View seems to parallel Steve Jobs philosophy to the letter - deciding when it's time to kill, time to die...
All I know is if I were an Android-only developer, I'd cover all my bases by investing in other platforms - JavaME especially, since it is the closest relation to Android, and would benefit from a mass exodus of Java developers should Android suddenly bow out of the scene. A look up the software stack to Chrome and HTML5 would not go awry either, if that's where Google is headed.
Make hay while the Sun shines...