Rumor: Google pressured Asus to cancel Android/Windows dual-boot devices

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 130
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You're assuming Digitimes is spot on then.

    DigiTimes is only accurate when you agree with it, inaccurate when you don't. ;)
  • Reply 82 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    snova wrote: »
    DroidFTW and Gatorguy,

    I gonna go out on a limb here and assume you have no issues buying Android tablets.  Would you buy this Intel based Android product w/ keyboard vs the other ARM based Android tablets offering which don't come with keyboard?  If you did, would your motivation be based on the fact it has Intel HW inside and/or includes a keyboard?  My assumption is it will be priced higher than ARM based tablets which don't come with keyboards.

    It's not a product I would have any interest in.
  • Reply 83 of 130
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

     

    Now this is a tangent.  :)


    don't let it bug ya. ok? just an observation. 

  • Reply 84 of 130
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snova View Post



    DroidFTW and Gatorguy,



    I gonna go out on a limb here and assume you have no issues buying Android tablets.  Would you buy this Intel based Android product w/ keyboard vs the other ARM based Android tablets offering which don't come with keyboard?  If you did, would your motivation be based on the fact it has Intel HW inside and/or includes a keyboard?  My assumption is it will be priced higher than ARM based tablets which don't come with keyboards.




    It's not a product I would have any interest in.

    Gatorguy,

    thank you for your honest response.

  • Reply 85 of 130

    Apple does allow the use of Microsux Windoz on their machines with Bootcamp. Apple isn't designing a computer to be sold running Windoz. Windoz isn't included with the purchase of any Apple product. The user must purchase Windoz separately. There is a difference. What ASUS could do is offer a download of their version of Android to people who could then load it onto their machines as a dual boot. If they can make it work well then good for them.

     

    Would ASUS be able to make Android work better than Windoz? If so then Microsux might lose even more customers in the future.

     

    As someone who likes the Google Chrome OS I visit forums and look at new devices for sale using it. Most of the people getting it are from the Microsux camp. They are finding that for everyday computing they love it and are forsaking Windoz. I have no direct experience with Android. What I do know is that there are many people who prefer it to iOS. So it must be good for a large amount of consumers. If a dual booted computer runs Android very well it could also make people forsake Windoz. Microsux would be endangering their market share if they found that people remained logged in to Android more than Windoz. It would just be a matter of time before customers realized that they didn't really need Windoz at all, especially with the great cloud services available today.

  • Reply 86 of 130
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

     

    Apple does allow the use of Microsux Windoz on their machines with Bootcamp. Apple isn't designing a computer to be sold running Windoz. Windoz isn't included with the purchase of any Apple product. The user must purchase Windoz separately. There is a difference. What ASUS could do is offer a download of their version of Android to people who could then load it onto their machines as a dual boot. If they can make it work well then good for them.

     

    Would ASUS be able to make Android work better than Windoz? If so then Microsux might lose even more customers in the future.

     

    As someone who likes the Google Chrome OS I visit forums and look at new devices for sale using it. Most of the people getting it are from the Microsux camp. They are finding that for everyday computing they love it and are forsaking Windoz. I have no direct experience with Android. What I do know is that there are many people who prefer it to iOS. So it must be good for a large amount of consumers. If a dual booted computer runs Android very well it could also make people forsake Windoz. Microsux would be endangering their market share if they found that people remained logged in to Android more than Windoz. It would just be a matter of time before customers realized that they didn't really need Windoz at all, especially with the great cloud services available today.


    Smallwheels,

     

    Its apparent that you dislike Microsoft. I am no fan either. However, why buy an Intel tablet w/ added cost in the first place over ARM tablet, if it does not come bundled with Windows? What relevance does Intel have for people interested in running only either ChromeOS or Android? Being only Android tablet, why even provide a keyboard?  There are keyboards out there for iPad and Android already, they haven't exactly lit the world on fire. Its a niche market. Why force a keyboard and more expensive x86 cpu and chipset upon your buyers of Android tablet. What does it buy you? Just to stand out as an odd product looking for a purpose?

  • Reply 87 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Wonder why that is. image

    Well, at the time that Steve Jobs announced the inclusion of Boot Camp, which enabled the process, he stated that it eliminates one more barrier to people buying a Mac. Really simple - I admired his willingness to just talk plainly about this stuff.

    Microsoft did not agree with the way Apple chose to enable Windows on the Mac - they wanted to port the Virtual PC product they bought from Connectix to the Intel Macs, so that they could sell that product, & a Windows licence, at a huge mark-up.

  • Reply 88 of 130
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snova View Post

     

    don't let it bug ya. ok? just an observation. 


     

    No worries.  There was no tangent in the first place so there isn't anything to get worked up about.  ;)

  • Reply 89 of 130

    Well, there is not much evidence of their hand being forced.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Yes but they don't boot Windows from the factory. Would Apple allow a reseller to sell Macs with Windows already installed? It was hackers that discovered the ability for a Mac to run Windows not Apple, but they took a negative and turned it into a positive for them.

    Apple used the ability to run Windows on a Mac as a way to eliminate one barrier to people buying a Mac - so yes, a positive.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by genovelle View Post





    Actually long before Android existed apple resale shops offered a daughter card that Apple supplied drivers for that ran windows. I remember being shown this expensive feature.

    Yep, Apple had offered the ability for years, as add-ons, or pre-installed. Apple even sold MSDOS & Windows 3.1 with those machines.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Really? With all the engineers Apple has, they couldn't figure out Windows could run on Intel based Macs?

    Yes, they had it figured out quite a while before the public announcement of the Intel switch.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Would it be the first time hackers got something to work that a company's developers said couldn't? This is from the BBC article.

    To answer your question, could they? They probably could, but why would they?

    There were no Apple employed engineers quoted in the article linked to. And no comment in the public record by any Apple employees about the matter. There were a couple of obscure articles in the Apple & Microsoft press at the time implying that Apple were going to dump OS X for Windows - reported as the alcohol primed ramblings of a group of Microsoft engineers, who were in part privy to the discussions between Microsoft & Apple at the time.

    Why would they? Well Apple became a Microsoft developer around 2003 (I have the exact date somewhere), ostensibly to write iTunes & Safari for Windows, after Eddy Cue convinced Steve Jobs that the iPod needed to go cross platform (a decision which Steve was NOT happy about).

    Apple engineers were extremely familiar with Windows development, & Apple as a company were & are, better than any other company as far as enabling platform switches (Apple II emulation for the Mac, the PowerPC transition with it's emulation environment, the Mac OS X transition with it's Classic & dual boot OS X/Mac OS 9 environments, the Intel transition with it's Rosetta environment). The simple answer is, to eliminate barriers to Mac adoption. The more complex explanation is that it immediately positioned Windows as the new Mac Classic environment - in other words, an operating system that would be there as a fall back or stop-gap, for those who needed it, but that would be deprecated (by the user) over time, to the point where it would no longer be needed or used at all by most people buying a Mac. It was a brilliant business decision.

  • Reply 90 of 130
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member

    I don't think Google had anything to do with this.  Its just a bad product, period.  We have already seen that Windows 8 tablet is a fail. x86 Android tablet with keyboard is just as bad, IMHO.   I don't think Google needed to pressure ASUS to kill this. Google would gain nothing as it would be losing another Android capable Tablet on the market.  Windows 8 tablet w/ keyboard has already proven that it is fail all by itself. x86 in an Android tablet, just makes for weaker value proposition.  Force a keyboard onto the buyer, its even worse.

  • Reply 91 of 130
    frood wrote: »


    Google works with partners.  It is a different model.  If one of those partners takes a step to shoot Google in the foot, I'd expect Google to tell them to stop.  That's not really being evil or newsworthy.  Cancelling business dealings with them wouldn't be out of order, certainly.  If they threatened to cover them in honey and throw them on a fire ant nest, that would be a 'break out the popcorn' headline and newsworthy.

    So Google is only newsworthy if they threaten to cover their partners in honey and throw them on a fire ant nest.

    Got it.
  • Reply 92 of 130
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     

     

    If only they didn't keep blathering on about how open Android is.

     

    See that's the difference, it's called hypocrisy and Google has it in spades.

     

    As usual people leap to Google's defence.


    What is meant by the term "open"? Do they mean "open" in the sense that users can set default apps? "Open" as in anyone can access and modify the Android source? Or "open" in the sense that people can fork the source code and still call their product Android? Just what do people mean by the word "open"?

  • Reply 93 of 130
    froodfrood Posts: 771member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by genovelle View Post





    In other news, Apple Macs boot Windows, and Apple doesn't claim to be open. So they are not dictating what another company puts on their device. If they thought it would provide a good consumer experience they would offer it like on the mac.

     

    Not true.  I can't go to an Apple Store and buy a Mac that runs Windows.

     

    Apple, again acting in its own self-interest, made an additional boot capability where *users* can choose to install Windows.  Apparently quite a few do because OSx doesn't meet all of their or their workplaces needs.  

     

    Which is the greater evil or greater benefit though?  I certainly don't know the answer.  Windows phone OS as well as Blackberry already have utilities to run Android.  They need the ecosystem and are willing to sacrifice their own 'identities' to get it.  In doing so, developers ask 'Why develop a native WinPhone or Blackberry App.  Just develop for Android and it runs on both.  So by offering it, are Windows and Blackberry helping or hurting themselves by promoting Android?  Without Android, their native App pool would be so small few would buy.

     

    The Mac is a similar story.  Apple wouldn't quite stoop to actually including Windows, but it all but does by making it easy for their users to do so and they even promote the capability on their Mac site.  Apple isn't doing that because they magically decided in one case they wanted to be 'open and free'- its because even today Mac sales would tank if they couldn't run Windows.

     

    Windows is already considering adding the Android capability to their desktop OS as well (not just through existing third party apps).  Not sure who benefits more from that one.

     

    Personally I think Android/Google would actually gain more benefit from the dual booting Windows/Android unit.  Android is open and Asus is free to still make the device if they choose to.  Google is a business and is free to alter its relationship with them if they feel their interests aren't aligned.

  • Reply 94 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frood View Post

     

     

    Not true.  I can't go to an Apple Store and buy a Mac that runs Windows.


    Yes, you can.

  • Reply 95 of 130
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    Don't be pointlessly pedantic, you know exactly what he means.

  • Reply 96 of 130
    vvswarupvvswarup Posts: 336member

    Google has spent years cultivating the image of Android being "open" and it has used this to paint Apple as the big, bad, evil corporation with its "walled garden" and "closed OS." Yet for years, there have been many whisperings about how the Android platform works which cast serious doubt on the openness of Android.

     

    There is a mounting pile of evidence to indicate that Android isn't truly "open," at least not in a way that's of any benefit to the customer. Android is open in the way Windows is open-OEMs get to use whatever components and hardware they like. Many like to tout this as "offering choice" to the customer, but it also leads to the risk of OEMs producing products that use substandard components, leading to a substandard experience.

     

    Android is not "open-source" by any stretch of the word. By definition, any entity must have unfettered access to the source code. If Google places restrictions on how Android is used, Android is not "open source."

  • Reply 97 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    vvswarup wrote: »
    Google has spent years cultivating the image of Android being "open" and it has used this to paint Apple as the big, bad, evil corporation with its "walled garden" and "closed OS." Yet for years, there have been many whisperings about how the Android platform works which cast serious doubt on the openness of Android.

    There is a mounting pile of evidence to indicate that Android isn't truly "open," at least not in a way that's of any benefit to the customer. Android is open in the way Windows is open-OEMs get to use whatever components and hardware they like. Many like to tout this as "offering choice" to the customer, but it also leads to the risk of OEMs producing products that use substandard components, leading to a substandard experience.

    Android is not "open-source" by any stretch of the word. By definition, any entity must have unfettered access to the source code. If Google places restrictions on how Android is used, Android is not "open source."
    http://source.android.com/source/initializing.html

    There are several Android variants. Nokia recently built one starting with Android open-source code to use for their commercial purposes. A few years back Amazon did the same thing, taking Android open-source code to build their own Kindle OS, and again for commercial purposes. Foreign manufacturers have taken open-source Android and adapted it to their own uses. Even the Chinese government got in on the act.

    While you have "unfettered access to the source code" the variants based on it are certainly not open-source. Google Android is one of those not-open-source variants, and going forward they'll probably contribute less and less of the good-stuff they come up for their variant back to open-source. Over time things have a habit of changing. Always have. But claims of being more "open" aren't the same as "open-source" anyway.

    There's still open-source Android code available tho. Get it while it's hot.
  • Reply 98 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    http://source.android.com/source/initializing.html



    There are several Android variants. Nokia recently built one starting with Android open-source code to use for their commercial purposes. A few years back Amazon did the same thing, taking Android open-source code to build their own Kindle OS, and again for commercial purposes. Foreign manufacturers have taken open-source Android and adapted it to their own uses. Even the Chinese government got in on the act.



    While you have "unfettered access to the source code" the variants based on it are certainly not open-source. Google Android is one of those not-open-source variants, and going forward they'll probably contribute less and less of the good-stuff they come up for their variant back to open-source. Over time things have a habit of changing. Always have. But claims of being more "open" aren't the same as "open-source" anyway.



    There's still open-source Android code available tho. Get it while it's hot.

    Agree with all that you have said here.

    The previous poster to whom you are replying to is also correct in that Google has harped on about the "open is good, closed/walled garden is bad" thing for quite a while. I think the poster sees this as hypocritical.

    Google does so, in case anybody here doesn't realise it, because it serves their purpose. Google is using this tactic as a rallying cry to us the people (those of us who are really in to tech stuff - all 1% of us), to motivate us to go in to battle, defend Google's stand, & convince others to join with us (& go out & buy more of Google's product). It's the same thing that Apple was brilliant at -"1984", "Think Different", "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC", for just three examples.

    "Over time things have a habit of changing. Always have."  

    I am going to take this quote out of context, just to serve to illustrate a point I want to make. The biggest change in tech that has occurred is one that is not easily identified at first glance, & there are many factors at play that have contributed to it. That change is that Apple's model of vertical integration has wiped the floor of the accepted model of horizontal partnering in the IT industry (not saying that Apple is going to displace hundreds of thousands of PCs in businesses all over the world, though). Owning & controlling the technology that your product/service is based on (& licensing a small minority of parts that you don't/can't own), has turned out to be critical for long term success. It's a lesson that Microsoft's partners have now learnt, & one that Google's partners will learn (I think Samsung has a clue that things need to change). It has allowed Apple to disrupt entire industries.

    And finally, 

    There's still open-source Darwin code available tho. Get it while it's hot.

  • Reply 99 of 130
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    frood wrote: »
    And if the rumor *were* true, what would the headline be:

    Google acts in Google's self interest?

    In other news, iPads don't boot to Android or Windows.

    iPad is made by Apple. If Apple decides to enable users to dual-boot, I'm sure Apple will not stop Apple from doing that.

    T300 is made by Asus. If Asus wants to make dual boot possible, Google OR Microsoft should not be able to blackmail them into not doing that. After all, you can dual-boot laptops and desktops, including Apple machines.

    I don't know if this rumour is true... but after Google's little YouTube stint with Windows Phone, I would not be surprised. They know Apple/iOS are already too strong to be fooled with (though they did try with maps, back in the days) but Windows Mobile (both phone and tablets) is infant enough to be easily bullied... for now.
  • Reply 100 of 130
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Apple does allow the use of Microsux Windoz on their machines with Bootcamp. Apple isn't designing a computer to be sold running Windoz. Windoz isn't included with the purchase of any Apple product. The user must purchase Windoz separately. There is a difference. What ASUS could do is offer a download of their version of Android to people who could then load it onto their machines as a dual boot. If they can make it work well then good for them.

    Would ASUS be able to make Android work better than Windoz? If so then Microsux might lose even more customers in the future.

    As someone who likes the Google Chrome OS I visit forums and look at new devices for sale using it. Most of the people getting it are from the Microsux camp. They are finding that for everyday computing they love it and are forsaking Windoz. I have no direct experience with Android. What I do know is that there are many people who prefer it to iOS. So it must be good for a large amount of consumers. If a dual booted computer runs Android very well it could also make people forsake Windoz. Microsux would be endangering their market share if they found that people remained logged in to Android more than Windoz. It would just be a matter of time before customers realized that they didn't really need Windoz at all, especially with the great cloud services available today.

    With all that silly names variations, you sound like 13 year old exhibiting mild b*tch fit...
Sign In or Register to comment.