Intel CEO: Google Android experiencing chaotic growing pains
Intel CEO Paul Otellini said on Tuesday that Google Android is currently undergoing growing pains from the transition from chaos to order as the platform moves toward Apple's strategy of exerting more control.
Otellini asserted during an investor meeting in Santa Clara, Calif., that Google's efforts to attract users to Android will need to be tempered by efforts to stem the growing problem of fragmentation on the platform, CNet reports.
"Google's model is to get as broad a base as possible because, how do they get paid? They don't get paid by selling Android. They get paid by clicks. At the end of the day, the more pervasive Android is, the more money Google ultimately makes because advertising revenue can accrue from it," he said. "I think there is some growing pains that Android is going through...How do you create order out of chaos?"
According to Otellini, Apple stands on the other end of the spectrum with a high level of order in its products. "Apple's objective is to control everything end to end so they can control the experience and the pricing."
Android faces a problem similar to Microsoft's efforts to exert control over the Windows ecosystem, Otellini continued, noting that Windows originally ran on a variety of platforms before settling on Intel's x86 architecture.
In time, Otellini sees Android moving away from openness in order to fight fragmentation. "The notion of compatibility forwards and backwards, the notion of verification...is something you'll see imposed on the Android ecosystem over time. If you read the press about [Android's] anti-fragmentation agreements that's exactly what's happening today," he said.
Beyond just talking about Android, Otellini also took the opportunity to quell recent rumors that Apple will abandon Intel for the ARM architecture on its line of Mac laptops.
"[Apple's] growth in Macs has quadrupled since they shifted to Intel, their market share has quadrupled since they shifted to Intel. And that value proposition has served them very well," the CEO said. "I don't see their Mac line moving in any different direction anytime soon."
According to a survey last month, 87 percent of Android developers view fragmentation as a problem on the platform, with 57 percent viewing it as a huge or meaningful problem.
Reports that Google had clamped down on handset makers led some to suggest that the search giant was enforcing "non-fragmentation clauses" for Android licensees. Google VP Andy Rubin responded by noting that the company's anti-fragmentation program had been in place in version 1.0 of the mobile OS.
"Our approach remains unchanged: there are no lock-downs or restrictions against customizing UIs," said Rubin. "There are not, and never have been, any efforts to standardize the platform on any single chipset architecture."
Apple CEO Steve Jobs said last fall that the comparison between iOS and Android is not one of open vs. closed, but rather integrated vs. fragmented.
"In reality we think the open vs closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue which is: what's best for the customer, fragmented or integrated? We think Android is very fragmented and becoming more fragmented by the day. We prefer integrated so the user doesn't have to be the systems integrator," Jobs said.
Otellini asserted during an investor meeting in Santa Clara, Calif., that Google's efforts to attract users to Android will need to be tempered by efforts to stem the growing problem of fragmentation on the platform, CNet reports.
"Google's model is to get as broad a base as possible because, how do they get paid? They don't get paid by selling Android. They get paid by clicks. At the end of the day, the more pervasive Android is, the more money Google ultimately makes because advertising revenue can accrue from it," he said. "I think there is some growing pains that Android is going through...How do you create order out of chaos?"
According to Otellini, Apple stands on the other end of the spectrum with a high level of order in its products. "Apple's objective is to control everything end to end so they can control the experience and the pricing."
Android faces a problem similar to Microsoft's efforts to exert control over the Windows ecosystem, Otellini continued, noting that Windows originally ran on a variety of platforms before settling on Intel's x86 architecture.
In time, Otellini sees Android moving away from openness in order to fight fragmentation. "The notion of compatibility forwards and backwards, the notion of verification...is something you'll see imposed on the Android ecosystem over time. If you read the press about [Android's] anti-fragmentation agreements that's exactly what's happening today," he said.
Beyond just talking about Android, Otellini also took the opportunity to quell recent rumors that Apple will abandon Intel for the ARM architecture on its line of Mac laptops.
"[Apple's] growth in Macs has quadrupled since they shifted to Intel, their market share has quadrupled since they shifted to Intel. And that value proposition has served them very well," the CEO said. "I don't see their Mac line moving in any different direction anytime soon."
According to a survey last month, 87 percent of Android developers view fragmentation as a problem on the platform, with 57 percent viewing it as a huge or meaningful problem.
Reports that Google had clamped down on handset makers led some to suggest that the search giant was enforcing "non-fragmentation clauses" for Android licensees. Google VP Andy Rubin responded by noting that the company's anti-fragmentation program had been in place in version 1.0 of the mobile OS.
"Our approach remains unchanged: there are no lock-downs or restrictions against customizing UIs," said Rubin. "There are not, and never have been, any efforts to standardize the platform on any single chipset architecture."
Apple CEO Steve Jobs said last fall that the comparison between iOS and Android is not one of open vs. closed, but rather integrated vs. fragmented.
"In reality we think the open vs closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue which is: what's best for the customer, fragmented or integrated? We think Android is very fragmented and becoming more fragmented by the day. We prefer integrated so the user doesn't have to be the systems integrator," Jobs said.
Comments
Personally I think Apple had the right model from the start. An open computer, where you can install anything you like is vital in an academic environment (e.g. an OS X workstation), but in the case of consumer devices it can have more cons than pros.
In other words, Jobs was right, and all that 'open' BS was - well, BS.
Is anyone surprised? At all?
Is Google just spooked by the relative ease with which handset makers could displace Google Search with Facebook or Bing if it were truly an open platform?
Could AND would. In a heartbeat, as soon as that check from MS or Facebook clears. If Google really WAS giving away an 'open' platform it would collapse for that very reason. They'd bear all the R&D costs, and opportunists would step in and divert the profit streams. It is, and has always been, just that simple. So OF COURSE the platform cannot be truly 'open'.
As they do move toward a more controlled platform, I hope Apple will get an apology at some point, or at least a nod.
You're almost certainly hoping for an honesty and integrity that just isn't there among the fandroid crowd. They need Apple to be 'evil' so they won't be.
"We prefer integrated so the user doesn't have to be the systems integrator," Jobs said.
Although I don't like being spoon fed anything and detest the idea of big brother's command and control, it is exactky this that led me to buy my first mac in the early 90's. System 7 worked quite well as a operating system, wheras Win 3.1 required a proactive user to keep the ship afloat. Maybe I am now effectively brain-washed, but I am quite content with a system (computer, phone, home entertainment, whatever) that is integrated out of the box and essentially productive - even if this is at the cost of some flexibility and diversification.
Although I don't like being spoon fed anything and detest the idea of big brother's command and control, it is exactky this that led me to buy my first mac in the early 90's. System 7 worked quite well as a operating system, wheras Win 3.1 required a proactive user to keep the ship afloat. Maybe I am now effectively brain-washed, but I am quite content with a system (computer, phone, home entertainment, whatever) that is integrated out of the box and essentially productive - even if this is at the cost of some flexibility and diversification.
+10 - Nice succinct post!
Google is in this game for one and only one reason: sell more Ads! And gather as much information about the users as possible, to sell to the ad creators... to sell...more...ads.
If that strategy starts to cave, and Google does not "sell more ads"... or they are forced to lock down Ad-Roid to secure user information... how long before their Beta software stays that way, and they lose interest in further developing it?
Then it's a free-for-all, and as far as I'm concerned, you can throw out all those fancy Ad-Roid vs. iOS charts, because it will be more like 20 "forks" against one lovely golden "spoon".
Yes, we like being "spoon-fed"
PS. I actually prefer "spooning"... but that's something completely different
Is Google just spooked by the relative ease with which handset makers could displace Google Search with Facebook or Bing if it were truly an open platform?
Well, they got spooked by Skyhook.
PS. I actually prefer "spooning"... but that's something completely different
ROFL. Spooning is nice. Preferably with a woman, although ...
Okay SRSLY... (BRB on Cheezburger website)
ROFL. Spooning is nice. Preferably with a woman, although ...
Okay SRSLY... (BRB on Cheezburger website)
You mean Terminator Kitteh? Oh she (he?) looks like a tuffy. Anywayz... I got my own... both a Kitteh & a Titteh
The Apple approach works because the system is hassle-free, I get to choose which software I want to acquire and the pricing is terrific.
You can build up a decent library of software on an IOS device for a surprisingly reasonable fee. It doesn't feel like a closed system in that the end user decides which software to add and there is lots of pressure keeping pricing in check.
If having to use Apple's distribution system is the price to pay for a system that is nicely integrated, it hardly strikes me as being too heavy a price. Besides, I don't know that Apple could have delivered the integration it has any other way.
Let's face it. This war is over. The competition knows that Apple has simply gotten it right and is now scrambling to pick off as many crumbs as possible. There was ample opportunity for competitors to take the path that has resulted in Apple's success and none did. In a way it's not surprising. The chaos model worked in the past and Apple's closed methodology caused the original Mac to be a marginal player for decades. As such, it was to be expected that competitors initially thought to turn to the approach that had worked before. Apple, instead, perfected its approach, leveraging a delivery method not a viable option decades ago.
99.7% vulnerable
also from what i read, android owners don't upgrade their os
here is where open kills the service, the walled garden approach works better to reduce attacks and data leakage
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...mpaign=feature
http://macdailynews.com/2011/05/18/9...breach-threat/
this should be peoples number one reason to think deep and long about this platform
You mean Terminator Kitteh? Oh she (he?) looks like a tuffy. Anywayz... I got my own... both a Kitteh & a Titteh
chaos is just the beginning
99.7% vulnerable
also from what i read, android owners don't upgrade their os
Not won't, can't. If they could simply upgrade when a new OS was available, the Verizon's in the world would drop Android. They would lose control and Android just does not supply enough revenue to support letting Goggle control everything like Apple does.
chaos is just the beginning
99.7% vulnerable
also from what i read, android owners don't upgrade their os
here is where open kills the service, the walled garden approach works better to reduce attacks and data leakage
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...mpaign=feature
http://macdailynews.com/2011/05/18/9...breach-threat/
this should be peoples number one reason to think deep and long about this platform
FWIW, that issue was pretty much taken care of yesterday, no update to the OS itself necessary. They took care of it by server-side changes with only Picasa still needing to be addressed as I understand it.
But still an excellent point. Without a single-source for the updates, ala' Apple/Microsoft, owners of Android devices are at the mercy of the either manufacturers or, in some cases, service providers if an unanticipated issue crops up. And they will.
When Apple's had similar OS issues arise they've had the luxury of a closed system with Apple as the sole provider of services and products. Problems can be handled in short order. Android grew much faster than I think anyone anticipated, and there's now some basic updating issues that need to be addressed sooner than they had expected. It's no surprise to me that Google has found it needs to exert some control over the platform. IMO I'd like to see Google themselves roll out the updates directly to devices. But that's going to require the cooperation of the manufacturers. I don't see any reason it can't be done. It'll just piss off a few Android fans that insist on hanging their hat on the word "open". To the majority of owners a little control wouldn't even be noticed, much less bothersome.
Closed
Controlled
Curated
Do you know the difference? Be careful, because they all begin with the same letter and it can get really confusing.
ROFL. Spooning is nice. Preferably with a woman, although ...
Okay SRSLY... (BRB on Cheezburger website)
Spooning is nice and preferably with another man!
Everybody wants to be like Apple. I expect Eric Schmidt and Paul Ortellini to start wearing jeans, sneakers, and turtle necks at their corporate meetings any day now.
I thought Eric was replaced already.