Samsung's big bet on Android actually a covert strategy to replace Android

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 114
    rogifan wrote: »
    What is this, SamsungInsider.com? :no:

    No, this is Appleinsider.
  • Reply 102 of 114
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Excellent questions. Though I don't think that there isn't a definitive answer.

    Yeah, but I'm not entirely sure that you're not wrong when you say that you don't think that there isn't a definitive answer.
  • Reply 103 of 114
    The covert aspect is that Samsung’s volume play and its pointed eradication of HTC (which most Android fans will tell you makes much better phones than Samsung, as Samsung itself acknowledged above) are serving its plans to destroy Android from the inside out. 

    Market research companies, however, continue to report that Samsung’s volume is supporting and leading Android as a strong competitor to Apple. Just because you read AI doesn’t mean the rest of the tech world is as well informed about what is happening. 

    Not to mention Amazon: I can't imagine Google are too happy about their breakaway ecosystem.
  • Reply 104 of 114
    jexus wrote: »
    <div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/178200/exclusive-samsungs-big-bet-on-android-actually-a-covert-strategy-to-replace-android#post_2514975" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Corrections</strong> <a href="/t/178200/exclusive-samsungs-big-bet-on-android-actually-a-covert-strategy-to-replace-android#post_2514975"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><p> </p><p>Not because of "failure," but because of infringement issues: <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/29/google-appears-ready-to-ditch-android-over-its-intellectual-property-issues" style="line-height: 1.4em;">Google appears ready to ditch Android over its intellectual property issues</a></p></div></div><p> </p>

    Which I'm all for. The sooner Java gets the boot the better.

    C and it's derivatives will do so much more for developers and should have been something Google did in the first place like Apple and MS did by carrying C/C#/Objective-C over.

    I hate Java and particularly its manifestation in cruddy cross-platform apps. I know there is a history as to why Google used it early on, but I think they have found it to their advantage, because Java can be easily used on very low-end Android devices. It was more important to Google that they seemed to have a large market-share. If they had jettisoned Java and gone with a proper native language from scratch, they could not have supported the low-end phones, and their market share would have suffered as a consequence.
  • Reply 105 of 114
    Huh?

    There were over 200 million Android phones sold last quarter. But Samsung only sold about 80 million Android phones last quarter.

    Samsung may be the largest Android manufacturer... but they're clearly not the only Android manufacturer.

    But if you take Samsung out of the equation, you're left with an OS that loses money; hardly an attractive proposition for developers.
  • Reply 106 of 114
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Only slightly off-topic:

    I went to Staples yesterday to pick up some printer ink. Passing by the laptop display I heard this conversation between an elderly man and the fairly young Staples salesperson. The words may not be exact but here's the gist of it:

    Salesman: Can I help you find something?
    Customer: Just looking for a Chromebook.
    Salesman: *laughs* . Why?
    Customer: I need another computer for email and bills and my daughter suggested it. She has one.
    Salesman: She uses a Chromebook? For what? *laughs again*
    Customer: What do you think I should get?
    Salesman: Personally I like Apple laptops.
    Customer: Where are those?
    Salesman: We don't carry them here. Some people think they're too expensive but if you can afford it that's what I think you should get.
    Customer: Do you have anything here? I don't really want to spend a lot.

    This is where I stuck my nose in:
    Me: What do you want to do besides email?
    Customer: That's mostly it. I pay bills and my wife uses it for recipes, pictures of the grandkids. Look at stuff for the house, medical stuff. Not a lot Shopping maybe.
    Salesman: We have a basic laptop over here for less than $400, It might work. It's a Windows machine so it's slow but if you don't do much it's a good price.
    Me: Why not a Chromebook? It costs less than that.
    Salesman: *snickers* It doesn't do anything.
    Me: Really? What doesn't it do?
    Salesman: *makes believe he's looking at one of the computers as an excuse to look away* I don't really know. I've never used one myself. I've just heard about them. (Now he turning red)
    Me: I think it will work for everything he said he needs it for. All his email and bills, shopping, keeping up with the kids pictures, editing pictures to send back, listening to music, research medical stuff. . . It's more secure, virus-proof as your Mac, always up to date, doesn't get hot so it won't burn his lap. Pretty much anything he'd do with the $400 laptop except the Chromebook is faster, doesn't cost as much, and easier. Anyway, sorry for butting in.
    Salesman: *nervous laugh* Well anything is better than Windows.

    This is where I walked away. I hope the customer did too before being misled any more by a supposedly trained computer salesman. No wonder Staples and stores like it are failing.

    He needed an iPad.
  • Reply 107 of 114
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,363member
    He needed an iPad.

    I got the impression he didn't want to spend as much as $400 if he didn't need to. A refurbished mini might have been OK to get the price down into the same range as a Chromebook but certainly not as easy to type on as a dedicated keyboard.
  • Reply 108 of 114
    But if you take Samsung out of the equation, you're left with an OS that loses money; hardly an attractive proposition for developers.

    If Samsung disappeared tomorrow... the other OEMs might sell more phones and start to become profitable selling their own Android phones. I thought that was part of the problem... Samsung having great marketing and people buying Samsung phones instead of other companies' phones.

    But that's not really happening... since I showed that there are more non-Samsung Android phones being sold every day.

    It might not help the situation with developers though. Even though there are significantly more Android phones sold than iPhones... the iPhone users actually spend more money on apps.
  • Reply 109 of 114
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post





    If Samsung disappeared tomorrow... the other OEMs might sell more phones and start to become profitable selling their own Android phones. I thought that was part of the problem... Samsung having great marketing and people buying Samsung phones instead of other companies' phones.



    But that's not really happening... since I showed that there are more non-Samsung Android phones being sold every day.



    It might not help the situation with developers though. Even though there are significantly more Android phones sold than iPhones... the iPhone users actually spend more money on apps.

     

    Yes, there are lots of Android phones sold.  No, they don't make any money (and actually lose money) selling them.  They are, apart from the flagship phones like S-series and the One, etc., low margin, cheap phones that are sold to buyers with little money.  Those buyers don't feed the ecosystem, consequently, which is why iOS users are always way ahead in spending, from apps to on-line shopping.

     

    Remove the S-series, the Note-series, and the Galaxy Tab and the like, and you're left with multiple companies who haven't posted a profit on smartphones in years, if ever.  The Android marketplace -- apps, shopping, etc. -- would effectively be gone if Samsung left.

     

    Whether people like it or not, Samsung IS Android when it comes to the marketplace.  Of course, Google doesn't care since if someone buys a Moto or a LG or a HTC, they are still going to see ads and thus Google will make money.  They don't care whether LG, Moto, or HTC are losing money (and frankly, I doubt that LG or Moto really care much, either, for obvious reasons).

  • Reply 110 of 114
    aaronj wrote: »
    Yes, there are lots of Android phones sold.  No, they don't make any money (and actually lose money) selling them.  They are, apart from the flagship phones like S-series and the One, etc., low margin, cheap phones that are sold to buyers with little money.  Those buyers don't feed the ecosystem, consequently, which is why iOS users are always way ahead in spending, from apps to on-line shopping.

    Remove the S-series, the Note-series, and the Galaxy Tab and the like, and you're left with multiple companies who haven't posted a profit on smartphones in years, if ever.  The Android marketplace -- apps, shopping, etc. -- would effectively be gone if Samsung left.

    Whether people like it or not, Samsung IS Android when it comes to the marketplace.  Of course, Google doesn't care since if someone buys a Moto or a LG or a HTC, they are still going to see ads and thus Google will make money.  They don't care whether LG, Moto, or HTC are losing money (and frankly, I doubt that LG or Moto really care much, either, for obvious reasons).

    Yeah... that explains why Android's usage share is so low.

    If the only people who actually use their Android phones as smartphones are the people with mid to high-end Samsung phones... that's not very many people in the grand scheme of things.

    All those low-end Android phones (and there are a lot of them) are basically used as feature phones... rarely accessing the web or paying for apps.

    No wonder developers tend to focus on the iPhone with 18% of the smartphone market... instead of Android with 80% of the smartphone market.

    As it turns out... all that Android market share isn't really a benefit to developers... since it depends on the type of user and their economic status.

    Who cares if 8 out of 10 smartphones sold today are running Android... if only 1 out of those 8 will actually spend money on your app?

    I said this already in my previous comment: "Even though there are significantly more Android phones sold than iPhones... the iPhone users actually spend more money on apps."
  • Reply 111 of 114
    jexusjexus Posts: 373member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post



    I hate Java and particularly its manifestation in cruddy cross-platform apps. I know there is a history as to why Google used it early on, but I think they have found it to their advantage, because Java can be easily used on very low-end Android devices. It was more important to Google that they seemed to have a large market-share. If they had jettisoned Java and gone with a proper native language from scratch, they could not have supported the low-end phones, and their market share would have suffered as a consequence.

     

    But this makes no sense to me.(The low end part)

    I'm not attacking your or anything so I hope this doesn't sound like that.

    C, even Post ANSI and 13-14 years since the 2nd edition of "The C programming language" is still an absurdly small language and is up neck and neck with assembly for popularity within embedded development.

    Nearly every usable machine worth using on the planet has a C compiler. I can't say the same for a JVM.

    It gives direct machine/low level access, Java does not. This could've done wonders for optimization of the system.

    The only possibly reasons I'm seeing are because

    A. Java is more Modern, Where as C has aged quite a bit(but still does the job well)
    B. Java is Object Oriented vs C's procedural nature. Meaning Java probably does a lot more for the programmer itself than C.
    C. As you mentioned, Java is probably easier to get running with less effort. Most likely because of it's built in Garbage Collection(Which C does not have) and JVM.

    But if the above were really a problem, then C++ could have probably served as a decent alternative. I mean, it can't be because Google is averse to C. ChromeOS is written in C/C++ from the Gentoo Fork.
  • Reply 112 of 114
    jexus wrote: »
    <div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/178200/samsungs-big-bet-on-android-actually-a-covert-strategy-to-replace-android/80#post_2516384" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Benjamin Frost</strong> <a href="/t/178200/samsungs-big-bet-on-android-actually-a-covert-strategy-to-replace-android/80#post_2516384"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><br />
    I hate Java and particularly its manifestation in cruddy cross-platform apps. I know there is a history as to why Google used it early on, but I think they have found it to their advantage, because Java can be easily used on very low-end Android devices. It was more important to Google that they seemed to have a large market-share. If they had jettisoned Java and gone with a proper native language from scratch, they could not have supported the low-end phones, and their market share would have suffered as a consequence.</div></div><p> </p>

    But this makes no sense to me.(The low end part)

    I'm not attacking your or anything so I hope this doesn't sound like that.

    C, even Post ANSI and 13-14 years since the 2nd edition of "The C programming language" is still an absurdly small language and is up neck and neck with assembly for popularity within embedded development.

    Nearly every usable machine worth using on the planet has a C compiler. I can't say the same for a JVM.

    It gives direct machine/low level access, Java does not. This could've done wonders for optimization of the system.

    The only possibly reasons I'm seeing are because

    A. Java is more Modern, Where as C has aged quite a bit(but still does the job well)
    B. Java is Object Oriented vs C's procedural nature. Meaning Java probably does a lot more for the programmer itself than C.
    C. As you mentioned, Java is probably easier to get running with less effort. Most likely because of it's built in Garbage Collection(Which C does not have) and JVM.

    But if the above were really a problem, then C++ could have probably served as a decent alternative. I mean, it can't be because Google is averse to C. ChromeOS is written in C/C++ from the Gentoo Fork.

    Apart that Java's Garbage Collection is flawed. Regardless of the legacy of C, etc., the real-world implementation of Java is just not optimised for apps and never will be.
  • Reply 113 of 114
    jexusjexus Posts: 373member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post



    Apart that Java's Garbage Collection is flawed. Regardless of the legacy of C, etc., the real-world implementation of Java is just not optimised for apps and never will be.

     

    I never argued such lol. I was arguing that I don't see logically in most cases why Google would take Java or C if "low end phones" was the reason. Seeing that C is itself one of the lightest programming languages around and can do a much better optimization job natively than Java can with JNI or COBRA.
  • Reply 114 of 114
    arlorarlor Posts: 528member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    Few points:

    Printer ink? Do people still print things? I thought we went digital as a culture, where things could be exchanged electronically. I even take paper invoices and checks I get and scan them for information archives. And Apple Stores will email your receipts. Ink jets and their consumables feel like an anachronism. I'm curious as to what people need to print these days.

     

    I still prefer to edit writing on paper (at least after the initial grammar/spelling pass), but of course I print that at work. And I tend to print anything else that absolutely has to be on paper at work and pay back the regulation 4c a page for it.

     

    At home I only have an art printer (Epson R2880), but you can't buy ink for that at Staples. I haven't had a laser printer since my last HP LaserJet failed like 10 years ago. Or any other high-volume printer.

Sign In or Register to comment.