It is either "with Google" phone, which has the pretty tight specs, all the extra Google API (for developers to use) plus the Google Apps, which are not open source and can't be "just included" as you propose or it is "Android based" phone, which is open source and you can screw it in any way you like. Good explanation (official one) can be found there :
What is the point of that ? Android came into market later, still plays the catchup game, but plays it IMO very good and in some aspects it is superior offer to iPhone. If Google can keep a tight grip on the standards, the fact it is platform of choice by many operators can't really hurt.
I do know that the two are under separate licenses. I never said that those proprietary Google API's are going to be magically included into the phone, I said that those Google API's are going to be excluded from the phone (if Verizon wants it that way). It breaks zero license to make a Verizon Android phone with Bing as the official search engine.
What I am talking about is that just because they showed up together on stage --- doesn't really mean much about anything. Verizon mentioned 2 android phones --- and one of them has been widely expected to be the Cliq, which is really a Facebook/Twitter phone.
No --- carriers and handset manufacturers are interested in Android precisely because Google doesn't have a tight grip on it.
I am not mixing the two terms at all (vinea is --- because he automatically assumes that it's the end of the world for the carriers). Everybody has been talking about Cliq --- but it's basically a Facebook/Twitter phone --- not really a Google phone.
Not the "end of the world" but capitulation on the control of devices. Or not, in which case the Android phone will be no better than any other Verizon cripped phone.
Quote:
Verizon and Google are working together, but it doesn't necessarily means that all those Google proprietary apps are going to make it into the actual handset. You can have a Verizon/Google phone with Google Voice (Google doesn't make money on that), Google Maps (Google doesn't make money on that), Android app marketplace (Google and Verizon are revenue sharing) --- and Verizon can still make Bing the official search engine for the Verizon/Google phone (and search is the main source of revenue for Google).
There are ads on Google Maps and Google Voice. And there is no reason for Google to allow tight integration on a Verizon phone without compensation. Google products are free to individual users and fairly expensive for corporate ones. Example: Google Earth...free for private use. $300/seat otherwise.
Not the "end of the world" but capitulation on the control of devices. Or not, in which case the Android phone will be no better than any other Verizon cripped phone.
There are ads on Google Maps and Google Voice. And there is no reason for Google to allow tight integration on a Verizon phone without compensation. Google products are free to individual users and fairly expensive for corporate ones. Example: Google Earth...free for private use. $300/seat otherwise.
It's a two way street. There is no reason for Verizon to sell an Android phone unless they have full control of it as well.
No carrier was touching the pre-release Android stuff when it was under the previously proprietary license. Then Google had to change Android to Apache license --- allowing both the handset manufacturers and carriers full control of the core of the Android source code.
Sure there are ads on Google Maps and Google Voice --- but there is no reason to believe that every Android phone will come with those apps. And there is no reason to believe that they will make Google any kind of real money either (even if they are included). If Verizon bundles free turn-by-turn app like Sprint does with their data plan --- then there is no reason to use Google Maps at all. But there is every reason to believe that if Verizon really did sign a comprehensive mobile search engine deal with Microsoft, then the Verizon Android phone will come with Bing search.
You people fell into the same trap when all the craze about linux phones several years ago. Motorola has sold millions and millions of linux phones, yet you can't do a single thing with it. Motorola even give you the source code, you can't do a thing with it because all the apps are built on top of a proprietary sandbox.
I do know that the two are under separate licenses. I never said that those proprietary Google API's are going to be magically included into the phone, I said that those Google API's are going to be excluded from the phone (if Verizon wants it that way). It breaks zero license to make a Verizon Android phone with Bing as the official search engine.
I never said that you said something you never said ;-) Just putting facts there (not just for you, for everyone there) so we can speculate. The fact is that if it is "with Google" phone, it must be quite intact, that is including the Google search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
What I am talking about is that just because they showed up together on stage --- doesn't really mean much about anything. Verizon mentioned 2 android phones --- and one of them has been widely expected to be the Cliq, which is really a Facebook/Twitter phone.
Sure this is just a speculation, but I'd bet being on same stage with Google means they will have "with Google" phone. Google would not do joint press conference to introduce "just" an Android phone. There was Google logo in the press conference, I am pretty sure there will be Google logo on Verizon phone as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
No --- carriers and handset manufacturers are interested in Android precisely because Google doesn't have a tight grip on it.
Disagree there. Sure some carriers and many handset manufacturers are interested Android OS so they can tweak it any way they want, but I think the "with Google" complete package is more interesting of the two : it is not just "some" Google applications, such as YouTube and Maps. Google API is really popular between developers and there is huge potential in ever growing collection distributed through Android Market (also part of "with Google")...look what iPhone AppStore means for Apple. Android Market outperformed AppStore in the comparable time slot after the start, so I doubt any operator will just ignore this.
It's a two way street. There is no reason for Verizon to sell an Android phone unless they have full control of it as well.
Then it's not open and it's even less competitive vs the iPhone.
Quote:
No carrier was touching the pre-release Android stuff when it was under the previously proprietary license. Then Google had to change Android to Apache license --- allowing both the handset manufacturers and carriers full control of the core of the Android source code.
Pre-release it wasn't ready for anything. They want control, sure, just like Apple. The problem is that they've been horrible at execution and have been revenue oriented in terms of sucking every dime they can from the consumer.
Apple wants control for a great user experience so the consumer buys more hardware.
So a Verizon dominated Android would be yet another epic fail. If they haven't clued in then okay they haven't caved. Mostly because the iPhone won't be available for Verizon before LTE.
There IS a reason that Verizon is pushing such widespread LTE expansion so quickly in so many markets and it sure as hell isn't because they are afraid that AT&T is going to catch up for 3G.
Quote:
You people fell into the same trap when all the craze about linux phones several years ago. Motorola has sold millions and millions of linux phones, yet you can't do a single thing with it. Motorola even give you the source code, you can't do a thing with it because all the apps are built on top of a proprietary sandbox.
Who's you people? Linux has been an epic failure on phones until Android and WebOS and neither has seen dominance yet. Linux will continue to be an epic failure for the same reasons it sucks on the desktops. Fragmentation and lack of focus on user experience.
If any of those companies had a real clue, they'd have developed the iPhone before Apple did.
Google API is really popular between developers and there is huge potential in ever growing collection distributed through Android Market (also part of "with Google")...look what iPhone AppStore means for Apple. Android Market outperformed AppStore in the comparable time slot after the start, so I doubt any operator will just ignore this.
Yes, API and footprint matter most to devs. Easy to develop for and massive potential customers makes a platform a no brainer. A verizon stove piped android phone is far less appealing.
Then it's not open and it's even less competitive vs the iPhone.
So a Verizon dominated Android would be yet another epic fail. If they haven't clued in then okay they haven't caved. Mostly because the iPhone won't be available for Verizon before LTE.
Verizon Wireless has been doing quite well in the 2 years since the iphone was launched. A half-assed iphone copycat (LG Voyager) beat the first gen iphone in sales back in 2007 winter to 2008 spring.
A half-assed attempt to give you an Android phone will do just fine for Verizon. They don't have to hit a home run. What you call an epic fail is going to be just fine for Verizon.
Verizon Wireless has been doing quite well in the 2 years since the iphone was launched. A half-assed iphone copycat (LG Voyager) beat the first gen iphone in sales back in 2007 winter to 2008 spring.
You'll have to show me that link given that the iPhone was #2 behind Blackberry in 3rd qtr 2007 with 1.12M phones and 28% market share and did 2.3M phones 1Q FY 2008 (last 3 months of 2007). Apple did 1.7M in Q2 FY2008. The only time the LG Voyager had a shot to "beat" the iPhone was in Q3 when 2G ran low in May and none in June just before the release of the 3G and only sold 700K.
But whatever. You've been the guy that thinks the iPhone suxxors since day 1 and Vz can do no wrong. Even when AT&T beat VZ on net adds in Q2 2009 from 3GS sales you saw a negative.
What are you going to say if AT&T beats VZ on net adds and has a higher ARPU on those adds in Q3 2009? That the iPhone still suxxors for AT&T and Vz is lucky not to have been suckered by Apple?
The fact is EVDO couldn't handle web friendly devices like GSM and Vz has no choice but to push LTE forward where T can get by with HSDPA since the MAJOR cost in wide scale LTE deployment is running fiber to every tower for increased backhaul. Something T has to do for HSPA+ or LTE and HSPA is more mature than LTE. So my read is that they're going to "match" VZ's LTE deployment (sorta) in terms of announcements but not in terms of real deployment unless the Apple tablet forces them to (i.e. it's LTE only).
Wanna watch VZ's network implode? Deploy LTE and lots LTE devices with the majority of Vz towers still only having about 6 Mbps worth of aggregate bandwidth from bundled T1s. With the number of towers to upgrade to Fuji FW 4100 SONET muxes running 50 Mbps I don't believe real 30 market LTE deployment in 2010. Drop on top the question of voice on LTE in the near term and I expect Vz's LTE to be data only in 2010 so Vz iPhone at the earliest in 2013.
i think the biggest advantage VZ has over T in the long term is 700Mhz spectrum. Although I dunno really how much VZ won vs what T had with the Aloha buy or the advantages of Band 13 vs band 17 if any.
You'll have to show me that link given that the iPhone was #2 behind Blackberry in 3rd qtr 2007 with 1.12M phones and 28% market share and did 2.3M phones 1Q FY 2008 (last 3 months of 2007). Apple did 1.7M in Q2 FY2008. The only time the LG Voyager had a shot to "beat" the iPhone was in Q3 when 2G ran low in May and none in June just before the release of the 3G and only sold 700K.
But whatever. You've been the guy that thinks the iPhone suxxors since day 1 and Vz can do no wrong. Even when AT&T beat VZ on net adds in Q2 2009 from 3GS sales you saw a negative.
What are you going to say if AT&T beats VZ on net adds and has a higher ARPU on those adds in Q3 2009? That the iPhone still suxxors for AT&T and Vz is lucky not to have been suckered by Apple?
The fact is EVDO couldn't handle web friendly devices like GSM and Vz has no choice but to push LTE forward where T can get by with HSDPA since the MAJOR cost in wide scale LTE deployment is running fiber to every tower for increased backhaul. Something T has to do for HSPA+ or LTE and HSPA is more mature than LTE. So my read is that they're going to "match" VZ's LTE deployment (sorta) in terms of announcements but not in terms of real deployment unless the Apple tablet forces them to (i.e. it's LTE only).
Wanna watch VZ's network implode? Deploy LTE and lots LTE devices with the majority of Vz towers still only having about 6 Mbps worth of aggregate bandwidth from bundled T1s. With the number of towers to upgrade to Fuji FW 4100 SONET muxes running 50 Mbps I don't believe real 30 market LTE deployment in 2010. Drop on top the question of voice on LTE in the near term and I expect Vz's LTE to be data only in 2010 so Vz iPhone at the earliest in 2013.
i think the biggest advantage VZ has over T in the long term is 700Mhz spectrum. Although I dunno really how much VZ won vs what T had with the Aloha buy or the advantages of Band 13 vs band 17 if any.
Total man-crush @vinea right now. Unless your a female, then I'm just crushing in general. Nice post.
Yes, API and footprint matter most to devs. Easy to develop for and massive potential customers makes a platform a no brainer. A verizon stove piped android phone is far less appealing.
Exactly. Android with all Google API is a very friendly development platform. The way you can combine functionality from various applications into your own has no match. iPhone better step up in this regard or it will face serious problems once all the applications that are now in development for Android hit the market.
Exactly. Android with all Google API is a very friendly development platform. The way you can combine functionality from various applications into your own has no match. iPhone better step up in this regard or it will face serious problems once all the applications that are now in development for Android hit the market.
Having worked a little with the Google APIs (only a very little) and Apple's I think that Apple provides devs a little more freedom given that their APIs go down to the core levels (hence their names). Google APIs seem great if you want to do what they do.
I don't think that Apple has much to fear from Google in the API department. Mostly I think Android will kill all other forms of mobile linux, and both iPhone OSX and Android will gut Symbian and WinMo unless WinMo 7 is fantastic. It's possible that WinMo 7 won't suck. Possible. The MS APIs don't suck either and they have a potentially great platform based on WPF and WPFe (Silverlight). Coding for WPF is pretty decent once you get used to XAML and there are scads of C# devs.
Teck you are making a very wise choice by never going to T Mobile months after finnally being able to leave the horrid T Mobile I still get bills for odd ball services the crappy company claims I had or used.
You'll have to show me that link given that the iPhone was #2 behind Blackberry in 3rd qtr 2007 with 1.12M phones and 28% market share and did 2.3M phones 1Q FY 2008 (last 3 months of 2007). Apple did 1.7M in Q2 FY2008. The only time the LG Voyager had a shot to "beat" the iPhone was in Q3 when 2G ran low in May and none in June just before the release of the 3G and only sold 700K.
But whatever. You've been the guy that thinks the iPhone suxxors since day 1 and Vz can do no wrong. Even when AT&T beat VZ on net adds in Q2 2009 from 3GS sales you saw a negative.
What are you going to say if AT&T beats VZ on net adds and has a higher ARPU on those adds in Q3 2009? That the iPhone still suxxors for AT&T and Vz is lucky not to have been suckered by Apple?
The only place in North America where the LG Voyager is sold --- is Verizon Wireless. And Verizon Wireless has sold 1.1 million LG Voyagers from its launch on Nov 21 2007 to April 11 2008.
AT&T activated 900,000 iphones in the christmas quarter and announced an additional 500,000 activations in the third week of May. Just extrapolate the "slow months" quarters from Jan to April --- we will give AT&T 400,000 activations for the same 2008 period as the LG Voyager announcement.
Unless you allocate more than 700,000 iphones out of the total 900,000 iphones in the Christmas quarter to the period between Nov 21 to Dec 31 2007 --- then the LG Voyager would have beaten the iphone numbers.
I am saying quite the reverse --- I am saying that even though the Verizon Android phone might suck big time, it's not the end of the world for Verizon. They don't need to hit the home run every time they step on to the plate.
But you do see my point that if AT&T can only beat Verizon during the iphone launch quarter, and not the other 3 quarters out of every year --- then there is a problem, isn't it? And AT&T didn't beat Verizon by a lot on the iphone launch quarter --- it's a rounding off decimal point win.
But you do see my point that if AT&T can only beat Verizon during the iphone launch quarter, and not the other 3 quarters out of every year --- then there is a problem, isn't it? And AT&T didn't beat Verizon by a lot on the iphone launch quarter --- it's a rounding off decimal point win.
Was the LG subsidized by Verizon during that period while the iPhone was full pop for the customer? Of the three model of iPhones,wasn't the original the lowest in unit sales? Wasn't the first iPhone Apple's first foray into cell phones? Any of these could have contributed to Verizon selling more LG's, even ignoring the impact of Apple turning off the faucet on iPhones in the months before the 3G launch. None of them apply now.
The only place in North America where the LG Voyager is sold --- is Verizon Wireless. And Verizon Wireless has sold 1.1 million LG Voyagers from its launch on Nov 21 2007 to April 11 2008.
Ah...so the LG didn't outsell the iPhone.
Quote:
AT&T activated 900,000 iphones in the christmas quarter and announced an additional 500,000 activations in the third week of May. Just extrapolate the "slow months" quarters from Jan to April --- we will give AT&T 400,000 activations for the same 2008 period as the LG Voyager announcement.
Riight. We'll just ignore other iPhone sales and then take a "guess" and "give" the iPhone fewer sales than the LG. Just because.
Quote:
Unless you allocate more than 700,000 iphones out of the total 900,000 iphones in the Christmas quarter to the period between Nov 21 to Dec 31 2007 --- then the LG Voyager would have beaten the iphone numbers.
Because the iPhone didn't do 2.3M in the Christmas qtr...oh wait. It did. And 1.1M that LG "sold" doesn't necessarily mean activations but what got pushed into VZ's channel during those 5 months.
Quote:
I am saying quite the reverse --- I am saying that even though the Verizon Android phone might suck big time, it's not the end of the world for Verizon. They don't need to hit the home run every time they step on to the plate.
It's sufficient that VZ is calling a different tune regarding the "openness" of their handsets to see that Apple has changed the landscape.
Quote:
But you do see my point that if AT&T can only beat Verizon during the iphone launch quarter, and not the other 3 quarters out of every year --- then there is a problem, isn't it? And AT&T didn't beat Verizon by a lot on the iphone launch quarter --- it's a rounding off decimal point win.
Except we haven't got the results from the next qtr yet.
Riight. We'll just ignore other iPhone sales and then take a "guess" and "give" the iPhone fewer sales than the LG. Just because.
Because the iPhone didn't do 2.3M in the Christmas qtr...oh wait. It did. And 1.1M that LG "sold" doesn't necessarily mean activations but what got pushed into VZ's channel during those 5 months.
It's sufficient that VZ is calling a different tune regarding the "openness" of their handsets to see that Apple has changed the landscape.
Except we haven't got the results from the next qtr yet.
I am talking about AT&T's iphone sales vs. Verizon's LG Voyager sales.
The Verizon/Google Android announcement was characterized by Forbes magazine as leaving "traditional balance of power in tact" with Verizon keeping "its traditional spot in the driver?s seat".
Let's see if Android escapes the fate of Windows. "One OS many devices" eventually runs up against the problem of runaway complexity. Android will get complex enough as the functions demanded of it increases. That complexity increases geometrically when the OS has to support several different devices, each with its own unique characteristics. Just too many moving parts to keep track off. Good luck keeping down the code bloat on Android.
Google will try to address this by publishing a very tight list of phone specs, but they can only go so far with this standardization. What hand set maker wants to sell a phone that is hardly distinguishable from its competitors? So each handset maker will add on their own customized tweaks then it's even worse than Windows. Android would no longer be an OS but a class of OSes. Sorta like Linux as seen by non-geeks. (So there's Ubuntu, and SUSE, and Redhat and what have you and they're all Linux but they're also all different from each other.)
Here comes the balkanization of Android. Way earlier than I expected. . .
Why the hell is Eric Schmidt holding a Windows phone? You can see it running Windows Mobile 6.5, it's not an Android phone at all.
I must say, up until recently I basically spat at every phone that wasn't an iPhone. They were all so pathetic in comparison I wouldn't even dream about using them.
However, my wife just got a HTC Magic with Android. After using it for about an hour, I went back to the iPhone and it felt like an outdated toy. It is a brick in comparison. Almost everything about Android beats that of the iPhone. The best part is true multi-tasking, you really forget how much you miss that. There are only two things that the iPhone is better at, and unfortunately for Android, they are big things.
One is multi-touch, which I'm sure they can do but Apple's patents prevent them. And the Google Marketplace - it is very small compared to the App Store, but I'll bet this will change. Programming in Java is so much nicer than outdated Objective-C and there are no restrictive Apple policies to deter developers.
Comments
It is either "with Google" phone, which has the pretty tight specs, all the extra Google API (for developers to use) plus the Google Apps, which are not open source and can't be "just included" as you propose or it is "Android based" phone, which is open source and you can screw it in any way you like. Good explanation (official one) can be found there :
http://android-developers.blogspot.c...r-android.html
What is the point of that ? Android came into market later, still plays the catchup game, but plays it IMO very good and in some aspects it is superior offer to iPhone. If Google can keep a tight grip on the standards, the fact it is platform of choice by many operators can't really hurt.
I do know that the two are under separate licenses. I never said that those proprietary Google API's are going to be magically included into the phone, I said that those Google API's are going to be excluded from the phone (if Verizon wants it that way). It breaks zero license to make a Verizon Android phone with Bing as the official search engine.
What I am talking about is that just because they showed up together on stage --- doesn't really mean much about anything. Verizon mentioned 2 android phones --- and one of them has been widely expected to be the Cliq, which is really a Facebook/Twitter phone.
No --- carriers and handset manufacturers are interested in Android precisely because Google doesn't have a tight grip on it.
I am not mixing the two terms at all (vinea is --- because he automatically assumes that it's the end of the world for the carriers). Everybody has been talking about Cliq --- but it's basically a Facebook/Twitter phone --- not really a Google phone.
Not the "end of the world" but capitulation on the control of devices. Or not, in which case the Android phone will be no better than any other Verizon cripped phone.
Verizon and Google are working together, but it doesn't necessarily means that all those Google proprietary apps are going to make it into the actual handset. You can have a Verizon/Google phone with Google Voice (Google doesn't make money on that), Google Maps (Google doesn't make money on that), Android app marketplace (Google and Verizon are revenue sharing) --- and Verizon can still make Bing the official search engine for the Verizon/Google phone (and search is the main source of revenue for Google).
There are ads on Google Maps and Google Voice. And there is no reason for Google to allow tight integration on a Verizon phone without compensation. Google products are free to individual users and fairly expensive for corporate ones. Example: Google Earth...free for private use. $300/seat otherwise.
Not the "end of the world" but capitulation on the control of devices. Or not, in which case the Android phone will be no better than any other Verizon cripped phone.
There are ads on Google Maps and Google Voice. And there is no reason for Google to allow tight integration on a Verizon phone without compensation. Google products are free to individual users and fairly expensive for corporate ones. Example: Google Earth...free for private use. $300/seat otherwise.
It's a two way street. There is no reason for Verizon to sell an Android phone unless they have full control of it as well.
No carrier was touching the pre-release Android stuff when it was under the previously proprietary license. Then Google had to change Android to Apache license --- allowing both the handset manufacturers and carriers full control of the core of the Android source code.
Sure there are ads on Google Maps and Google Voice --- but there is no reason to believe that every Android phone will come with those apps. And there is no reason to believe that they will make Google any kind of real money either (even if they are included). If Verizon bundles free turn-by-turn app like Sprint does with their data plan --- then there is no reason to use Google Maps at all. But there is every reason to believe that if Verizon really did sign a comprehensive mobile search engine deal with Microsoft, then the Verizon Android phone will come with Bing search.
You people fell into the same trap when all the craze about linux phones several years ago. Motorola has sold millions and millions of linux phones, yet you can't do a single thing with it. Motorola even give you the source code, you can't do a thing with it because all the apps are built on top of a proprietary sandbox.
I do know that the two are under separate licenses. I never said that those proprietary Google API's are going to be magically included into the phone, I said that those Google API's are going to be excluded from the phone (if Verizon wants it that way). It breaks zero license to make a Verizon Android phone with Bing as the official search engine.
I never said that you said something you never said ;-) Just putting facts there (not just for you, for everyone there) so we can speculate. The fact is that if it is "with Google" phone, it must be quite intact, that is including the Google search.
What I am talking about is that just because they showed up together on stage --- doesn't really mean much about anything. Verizon mentioned 2 android phones --- and one of them has been widely expected to be the Cliq, which is really a Facebook/Twitter phone.
Sure this is just a speculation, but I'd bet being on same stage with Google means they will have "with Google" phone. Google would not do joint press conference to introduce "just" an Android phone. There was Google logo in the press conference, I am pretty sure there will be Google logo on Verizon phone as well.
No --- carriers and handset manufacturers are interested in Android precisely because Google doesn't have a tight grip on it.
Disagree there. Sure some carriers and many handset manufacturers are interested Android OS so they can tweak it any way they want, but I think the "with Google" complete package is more interesting of the two : it is not just "some" Google applications, such as YouTube and Maps. Google API is really popular between developers and there is huge potential in ever growing collection distributed through Android Market (also part of "with Google")...look what iPhone AppStore means for Apple. Android Market outperformed AppStore in the comparable time slot after the start, so I doubt any operator will just ignore this.
It's a two way street. There is no reason for Verizon to sell an Android phone unless they have full control of it as well.
Then it's not open and it's even less competitive vs the iPhone.
No carrier was touching the pre-release Android stuff when it was under the previously proprietary license. Then Google had to change Android to Apache license --- allowing both the handset manufacturers and carriers full control of the core of the Android source code.
Pre-release it wasn't ready for anything. They want control, sure, just like Apple. The problem is that they've been horrible at execution and have been revenue oriented in terms of sucking every dime they can from the consumer.
Apple wants control for a great user experience so the consumer buys more hardware.
So a Verizon dominated Android would be yet another epic fail. If they haven't clued in then okay they haven't caved. Mostly because the iPhone won't be available for Verizon before LTE.
There IS a reason that Verizon is pushing such widespread LTE expansion so quickly in so many markets and it sure as hell isn't because they are afraid that AT&T is going to catch up for 3G.
You people fell into the same trap when all the craze about linux phones several years ago. Motorola has sold millions and millions of linux phones, yet you can't do a single thing with it. Motorola even give you the source code, you can't do a thing with it because all the apps are built on top of a proprietary sandbox.
Who's you people? Linux has been an epic failure on phones until Android and WebOS and neither has seen dominance yet. Linux will continue to be an epic failure for the same reasons it sucks on the desktops. Fragmentation and lack of focus on user experience.
If any of those companies had a real clue, they'd have developed the iPhone before Apple did.
Google API is really popular between developers and there is huge potential in ever growing collection distributed through Android Market (also part of "with Google")...look what iPhone AppStore means for Apple. Android Market outperformed AppStore in the comparable time slot after the start, so I doubt any operator will just ignore this.
Yes, API and footprint matter most to devs. Easy to develop for and massive potential customers makes a platform a no brainer. A verizon stove piped android phone is far less appealing.
Then it's not open and it's even less competitive vs the iPhone.
So a Verizon dominated Android would be yet another epic fail. If they haven't clued in then okay they haven't caved. Mostly because the iPhone won't be available for Verizon before LTE.
Verizon Wireless has been doing quite well in the 2 years since the iphone was launched. A half-assed iphone copycat (LG Voyager) beat the first gen iphone in sales back in 2007 winter to 2008 spring.
A half-assed attempt to give you an Android phone will do just fine for Verizon. They don't have to hit a home run. What you call an epic fail is going to be just fine for Verizon.
Verizon Wireless has been doing quite well in the 2 years since the iphone was launched. A half-assed iphone copycat (LG Voyager) beat the first gen iphone in sales back in 2007 winter to 2008 spring.
You'll have to show me that link given that the iPhone was #2 behind Blackberry in 3rd qtr 2007 with 1.12M phones and 28% market share and did 2.3M phones 1Q FY 2008 (last 3 months of 2007). Apple did 1.7M in Q2 FY2008. The only time the LG Voyager had a shot to "beat" the iPhone was in Q3 when 2G ran low in May and none in June just before the release of the 3G and only sold 700K.
But whatever. You've been the guy that thinks the iPhone suxxors since day 1 and Vz can do no wrong. Even when AT&T beat VZ on net adds in Q2 2009 from 3GS sales you saw a negative.
What are you going to say if AT&T beats VZ on net adds and has a higher ARPU on those adds in Q3 2009? That the iPhone still suxxors for AT&T and Vz is lucky not to have been suckered by Apple?
The fact is EVDO couldn't handle web friendly devices like GSM and Vz has no choice but to push LTE forward where T can get by with HSDPA since the MAJOR cost in wide scale LTE deployment is running fiber to every tower for increased backhaul. Something T has to do for HSPA+ or LTE and HSPA is more mature than LTE. So my read is that they're going to "match" VZ's LTE deployment (sorta) in terms of announcements but not in terms of real deployment unless the Apple tablet forces them to (i.e. it's LTE only).
Wanna watch VZ's network implode? Deploy LTE and lots LTE devices with the majority of Vz towers still only having about 6 Mbps worth of aggregate bandwidth from bundled T1s. With the number of towers to upgrade to Fuji FW 4100 SONET muxes running 50 Mbps I don't believe real 30 market LTE deployment in 2010. Drop on top the question of voice on LTE in the near term and I expect Vz's LTE to be data only in 2010 so Vz iPhone at the earliest in 2013.
i think the biggest advantage VZ has over T in the long term is 700Mhz spectrum. Although I dunno really how much VZ won vs what T had with the Aloha buy or the advantages of Band 13 vs band 17 if any.
You'll have to show me that link given that the iPhone was #2 behind Blackberry in 3rd qtr 2007 with 1.12M phones and 28% market share and did 2.3M phones 1Q FY 2008 (last 3 months of 2007). Apple did 1.7M in Q2 FY2008. The only time the LG Voyager had a shot to "beat" the iPhone was in Q3 when 2G ran low in May and none in June just before the release of the 3G and only sold 700K.
But whatever. You've been the guy that thinks the iPhone suxxors since day 1 and Vz can do no wrong. Even when AT&T beat VZ on net adds in Q2 2009 from 3GS sales you saw a negative.
What are you going to say if AT&T beats VZ on net adds and has a higher ARPU on those adds in Q3 2009? That the iPhone still suxxors for AT&T and Vz is lucky not to have been suckered by Apple?
The fact is EVDO couldn't handle web friendly devices like GSM and Vz has no choice but to push LTE forward where T can get by with HSDPA since the MAJOR cost in wide scale LTE deployment is running fiber to every tower for increased backhaul. Something T has to do for HSPA+ or LTE and HSPA is more mature than LTE. So my read is that they're going to "match" VZ's LTE deployment (sorta) in terms of announcements but not in terms of real deployment unless the Apple tablet forces them to (i.e. it's LTE only).
Wanna watch VZ's network implode? Deploy LTE and lots LTE devices with the majority of Vz towers still only having about 6 Mbps worth of aggregate bandwidth from bundled T1s. With the number of towers to upgrade to Fuji FW 4100 SONET muxes running 50 Mbps I don't believe real 30 market LTE deployment in 2010. Drop on top the question of voice on LTE in the near term and I expect Vz's LTE to be data only in 2010 so Vz iPhone at the earliest in 2013.
i think the biggest advantage VZ has over T in the long term is 700Mhz spectrum. Although I dunno really how much VZ won vs what T had with the Aloha buy or the advantages of Band 13 vs band 17 if any.
Total man-crush @vinea right now.
Yes, API and footprint matter most to devs. Easy to develop for and massive potential customers makes a platform a no brainer. A verizon stove piped android phone is far less appealing.
Exactly. Android with all Google API is a very friendly development platform. The way you can combine functionality from various applications into your own has no match. iPhone better step up in this regard or it will face serious problems once all the applications that are now in development for Android hit the market.
Exactly. Android with all Google API is a very friendly development platform. The way you can combine functionality from various applications into your own has no match. iPhone better step up in this regard or it will face serious problems once all the applications that are now in development for Android hit the market.
Having worked a little with the Google APIs (only a very little) and Apple's I think that Apple provides devs a little more freedom given that their APIs go down to the core levels (hence their names). Google APIs seem great if you want to do what they do.
I don't think that Apple has much to fear from Google in the API department. Mostly I think Android will kill all other forms of mobile linux, and both iPhone OSX and Android will gut Symbian and WinMo unless WinMo 7 is fantastic. It's possible that WinMo 7 won't suck. Possible. The MS APIs don't suck either and they have a potentially great platform based on WPF and WPFe (Silverlight). Coding for WPF is pretty decent once you get used to XAML and there are scads of C# devs.
You'll have to show me that link given that the iPhone was #2 behind Blackberry in 3rd qtr 2007 with 1.12M phones and 28% market share and did 2.3M phones 1Q FY 2008 (last 3 months of 2007). Apple did 1.7M in Q2 FY2008. The only time the LG Voyager had a shot to "beat" the iPhone was in Q3 when 2G ran low in May and none in June just before the release of the 3G and only sold 700K.
But whatever. You've been the guy that thinks the iPhone suxxors since day 1 and Vz can do no wrong. Even when AT&T beat VZ on net adds in Q2 2009 from 3GS sales you saw a negative.
What are you going to say if AT&T beats VZ on net adds and has a higher ARPU on those adds in Q3 2009? That the iPhone still suxxors for AT&T and Vz is lucky not to have been suckered by Apple?
The only place in North America where the LG Voyager is sold --- is Verizon Wireless. And Verizon Wireless has sold 1.1 million LG Voyagers from its launch on Nov 21 2007 to April 11 2008.
http://english.etnews.co.kr/news/det...d=200804110002
AT&T activated 900,000 iphones in the christmas quarter and announced an additional 500,000 activations in the third week of May. Just extrapolate the "slow months" quarters from Jan to April --- we will give AT&T 400,000 activations for the same 2008 period as the LG Voyager announcement.
Unless you allocate more than 700,000 iphones out of the total 900,000 iphones in the Christmas quarter to the period between Nov 21 to Dec 31 2007 --- then the LG Voyager would have beaten the iphone numbers.
I am saying quite the reverse --- I am saying that even though the Verizon Android phone might suck big time, it's not the end of the world for Verizon. They don't need to hit the home run every time they step on to the plate.
But you do see my point that if AT&T can only beat Verizon during the iphone launch quarter, and not the other 3 quarters out of every year --- then there is a problem, isn't it? And AT&T didn't beat Verizon by a lot on the iphone launch quarter --- it's a rounding off decimal point win.
But you do see my point that if AT&T can only beat Verizon during the iphone launch quarter, and not the other 3 quarters out of every year --- then there is a problem, isn't it? And AT&T didn't beat Verizon by a lot on the iphone launch quarter --- it's a rounding off decimal point win.
Was the LG subsidized by Verizon during that period while the iPhone was full pop for the customer? Of the three model of iPhones,wasn't the original the lowest in unit sales? Wasn't the first iPhone Apple's first foray into cell phones? Any of these could have contributed to Verizon selling more LG's, even ignoring the impact of Apple turning off the faucet on iPhones in the months before the 3G launch. None of them apply now.
The only place in North America where the LG Voyager is sold --- is Verizon Wireless. And Verizon Wireless has sold 1.1 million LG Voyagers from its launch on Nov 21 2007 to April 11 2008.
Ah...so the LG didn't outsell the iPhone.
AT&T activated 900,000 iphones in the christmas quarter and announced an additional 500,000 activations in the third week of May. Just extrapolate the "slow months" quarters from Jan to April --- we will give AT&T 400,000 activations for the same 2008 period as the LG Voyager announcement.
Riight. We'll just ignore other iPhone sales and then take a "guess" and "give" the iPhone fewer sales than the LG. Just because.
Unless you allocate more than 700,000 iphones out of the total 900,000 iphones in the Christmas quarter to the period between Nov 21 to Dec 31 2007 --- then the LG Voyager would have beaten the iphone numbers.
Because the iPhone didn't do 2.3M in the Christmas qtr...oh wait. It did. And 1.1M that LG "sold" doesn't necessarily mean activations but what got pushed into VZ's channel during those 5 months.
I am saying quite the reverse --- I am saying that even though the Verizon Android phone might suck big time, it's not the end of the world for Verizon. They don't need to hit the home run every time they step on to the plate.
It's sufficient that VZ is calling a different tune regarding the "openness" of their handsets to see that Apple has changed the landscape.
But you do see my point that if AT&T can only beat Verizon during the iphone launch quarter, and not the other 3 quarters out of every year --- then there is a problem, isn't it? And AT&T didn't beat Verizon by a lot on the iphone launch quarter --- it's a rounding off decimal point win.
Except we haven't got the results from the next qtr yet.
Ah...so the LG didn't outsell the iPhone.
Riight. We'll just ignore other iPhone sales and then take a "guess" and "give" the iPhone fewer sales than the LG. Just because.
Because the iPhone didn't do 2.3M in the Christmas qtr...oh wait. It did. And 1.1M that LG "sold" doesn't necessarily mean activations but what got pushed into VZ's channel during those 5 months.
It's sufficient that VZ is calling a different tune regarding the "openness" of their handsets to see that Apple has changed the landscape.
Except we haven't got the results from the next qtr yet.
I am talking about AT&T's iphone sales vs. Verizon's LG Voyager sales.
The Verizon/Google Android announcement was characterized by Forbes magazine as leaving "traditional balance of power in tact" with Verizon keeping "its traditional spot in the driver?s seat".
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/09/tra...ting-ctia.html
The Forbes view of this deal is very different than the view you stated --- that Verizon is capitulating.
Let's see if Android escapes the fate of Windows. "One OS many devices" eventually runs up against the problem of runaway complexity. Android will get complex enough as the functions demanded of it increases. That complexity increases geometrically when the OS has to support several different devices, each with its own unique characteristics. Just too many moving parts to keep track off. Good luck keeping down the code bloat on Android.
Google will try to address this by publishing a very tight list of phone specs, but they can only go so far with this standardization. What hand set maker wants to sell a phone that is hardly distinguishable from its competitors? So each handset maker will add on their own customized tweaks then it's even worse than Windows. Android would no longer be an OS but a class of OSes. Sorta like Linux as seen by non-geeks. (So there's Ubuntu, and SUSE, and Redhat and what have you and they're all Linux but they're also all different from each other.)
Here comes the balkanization of Android. Way earlier than I expected. . .
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/11...ndroids-armor/
I must say, up until recently I basically spat at every phone that wasn't an iPhone. They were all so pathetic in comparison I wouldn't even dream about using them.
However, my wife just got a HTC Magic with Android. After using it for about an hour, I went back to the iPhone and it felt like an outdated toy. It is a brick in comparison. Almost everything about Android beats that of the iPhone. The best part is true multi-tasking, you really forget how much you miss that. There are only two things that the iPhone is better at, and unfortunately for Android, they are big things.
One is multi-touch, which I'm sure they can do but Apple's patents prevent them. And the Google Marketplace - it is very small compared to the App Store, but I'll bet this will change. Programming in Java is so much nicer than outdated Objective-C and there are no restrictive Apple policies to deter developers.
Google is really onto a winner with this one.