Google is giving preferential treatment. If they dont offer the same access, within the same requirements to all customers, that is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.
Offering preference to one vendor, even a subsidiary that they buy, over it's competitors is monopolistic and, thus, illegal if Google does that.
No, it's not. There is absolutely nothing in the antitrust laws that requires what you're suggesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
It doesn't just mean motorola. Not only does this go against history and Google's stated intentions but it would COMPLETELY ruin their business model. The goal of android is to get Google services infront of as many eyeballs as possible. Closing android would not only REDUCE eyeballs but would give a HUGE boost to Bing.
The "Flagship" device manufacturer is deciding via a bidding process that the manufacturers participate in.
Why would you think that past history (when Google didn't own Motorola) would determine the future (when Google does own Motorola)? Circumstances have changed drastically, so there's no a priori reason to think that the behavior won't change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
Yes, let's ignore the over FOUR YEARS of device history, upgrade path history, etc. all because of a PAIR of letters in a SINGLE leaked document..
No, let's take the history with a grain of salt because Google just spent $12.5 B to become a hardware manufacturer. Those documents merely show that Google is not above playing favorites.
No, you're insinuating something and providing ZERO evidence for justifying that POV when ALL company statements, and financial data contradicts it.
Actually, Google's financial statements support what he says. Google has spent at least $20B so far on Android (purchase of Android and Motorola, development costs and legal fees). That cost is only going to get higher since 1) Motorola has been posting losses for a couple of years and those losses are now Google's unless it turns Motorola around (gee, I wonder how it will do that), 2) continued development (I doubt after ICS Google is going to say Android is perfect so we don't need to do more work).
Google now refuses to break out revenue it receives from mobile (much less Android) but the last time anyone from Google made a statement about it, it was $1B in a year. So even if those revenues grow, it will still take about 15 years just to recoup its costs and even that is dependent on Google: 1) stopping the hemorrhage at Motorola and 2) winning or negotiating its current lawsuits.
No, it's not. There is absolutely nothing in the antitrust laws that requires what you're suggesting.
Why would you think that past history (when Google didn't own Motorola) would determine the future (when Google does own Motorola)? Circumstances have changed drastically, so there's no a priori reason to think that the behavior won't change.
No, let's take the history with a grain of salt because Google just spent $12.5 B to become a hardware manufacturer. Those documents merely show that Google is not above playing favorites.
Circumstances haven't changed drastically. Insisting that they do and that Google's going to completely change how they make money by first DESTROYING their primary form of revenue before establishing a second doesn't make it true.
The documents show NOTHING that android users (or anyone not willfully ignorant who looked) didn't know of for years.
look, i'm sorry, but now you're just making sh*t up to pretend it doesn't mean simply what it says. they're engineers! (like you could possibly know who the authors really were). their English composition skills are poor! (let's stereotype engineers as grammer-challenged). like i said, you remind me of the bitter-end Nixon defenders. as i wrote way back earlier, it will be fun to see the contortions the Google-aid drinkers go through to explain this away. bottom's up! you can have the last word tonight, i'm going to bed.
Look, if you're going to act like an idiot and pretend that the use of the letters "ie" before Motorola and Verizon is some piece of damning evidence, you should probably look at the whole slide. Particularly, the last bullet point where the slide's author again incorrectly uses "ie" and refers solely to GoogleTV even though the sentence is clearly talking about multiple devices. (Or you could just look at the very beginning of the slide when the author mispells "shepherd".)
Why do Apple fans feel so much hatred toward anything that competes with the big A?
Actually, Google's financial statements support what he says. Google has spent at least $20B so far on Android (purchase of Android and Motorola, development costs and legal fees). That cost is only going to get higher since 1) Motorola has been posting losses for a couple of years and those losses are now Google's unless it turns Motorola around (gee, I wonder how it will do that), 2) continued development (I doubt after ICS Google is going to say Android is perfect so we don't need to do more work).
Google now refuses to break out revenue it receives from mobile (much less Android) but the last time anyone from Google made a statement about it, it was $1B in a year. So even if those revenues grow, it will still take about 15 years just to recoup its costs and even that is dependent on Google: 1) stopping the hemorrhage at Motorola and 2) winning or negotiating its current lawsuits.
And mobile is continuing to grow. There's this thing called "investing in a new market." look it up sometime. Up until the Motorola purchase (they haven't commented since) Google execs have gone on record saying that they've made enough from Android to pay its bills, and well over 50% of that number you quoted is the motorola deal, something they've ALSO gone on record multiple times about why they did it, an you're ignoring all of those reasons.
All you've stated does nothing to counter the fact that Google's primary source of income is ads. and that ANDROID was pushed out to make sure that users would continue using their service. In fact, other court documents (via TIMN) point out that they were concerned with everyone choosing Microsoft OS which would lock them out of the market since those phones would have another search engine (becoming Bing)
Saying "I don't trust reality and I'm going to assume a company will do a full 180 on everything, burning bridges as they go" isn't a valid argument if all you have to back it up is "they wanna be like apple!"
And mobile is continuing to grow. There's this thing called "investing in a new market." look it up sometime.
All you've stated does nothing to counter the fact that Google's primary source of income is ads. and that ANDROID was pushed out to make sure that users would continue using their service. In fact, other court documents (via TIMN) point out that they were concerned with everyone choosing Microsoft OS which would lock them out of the market since those phones would have another search engine (becoming Bing)
Saying "I don't trust reality and I'm going to assume a company will do a full 180 on everything, burning bridges as they go" isn't a valid argument if all you have to back it up is "they wanna be like apple!"
First off, there is no need to be rude to me since I treat everyone on this website with respect.
Secondly, the rate of mobile growth doesn't equate to the same rate of growth in advertising revenue. Its "investing in a new market" is fine until it has over invested which it is beginning to look that is the case. Sure, Google could be like Microsoft when it poured money in the Xbox, but even in that case it is debatable on whether or not Microsoft has recouped its money back AND Microsoft didn't BUY a company with 19,000 workers and revenue losses each and every quarter.
As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?
What's with the 'tude, dude? I was simply offering a reason stated by a writer. I didn't say it was right. In fact, my "um" was actually me questioning whether or not that was such a great prize. Take a Valium.
Apologies. Didn't mean to come off as directed at you. But I really do dislike Florian Mueller. And I really dislike the fact that the media accord him far more credibility than he's due, even though there are far more knowledgeable folks out there.
First off, there is no need to be rude to me since I treat everyone on this website with respect.
Secondly, the rate of mobile growth doesn't equate to the same rate of growth in advertising revenue. Its "investing in a new market" is fine until it has over invested which it is beginning to look that is the case. Sure, Google could be like Microsoft when it poured money in the Xbox, but even in that case it is debatable on whether or not Microsoft has recouped its money back AND Microsoft didn't BUY a company with 19,000 workers and revenue losses each and every quarter.
As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?
I don't intend to be rude, but it's frustrating saying the same thing dozens of times and to have it ignored.
Microsoft started making a profit on the xbox. And they lost over $100 per device on the xbox (minimum) which is a MUCH higher investment than Google is taking with Android.
No, companies are putting Bing on their devices, you're right. That proves the point of why this entire article is FUD since it is VERIZON (one of the listed parties) putting Bing on there, and there is no way you can call that following Google's wishes with the platform, meaning (as I've been saying)
The point of Android was to keep another company from locking Google out of mobile internet services. Apple is using Google for now, but what happens if Microsoft paid them a ton of money and they switched to Bing? or how blackberry switched to Bing.. Google was at the mercy of these other companies. So they released their own OS with Google a native part of the software. Sure, companies could replace it if they wanted, but it was highly unlikely that ALL of them would do so, which gave Google some breathing room.
Google was ALREADY locked out of china. It was a pretty big deal when it happened. Furthermore when google was IN china in full force, they made little headway against Baidu. If Baidu didn't take android and fork it, they would make their own OS instead. Either way wouldn't benefit Google.
Apologies. Didn't mean to come off as directed at you. But I really do dislike Florian Mueller. And I really dislike the fact that the media accord him far more credibility than he's due, even though there are far more knowledgeable folks out there.
I work in media and unfortunately the pundit that has the most access gets the most ink (warranted or not). Hopefully when some of these cases wind down, writers will take the time for more in depth articles which usually don't require such tight deadlines.
I don't intend to be rude, but it's frustrating saying the same thing dozens of times and to have it ignored.
Microsoft started making a profit on the xbox. And they lost over $100 per device on the xbox (minimum) which is a MUCH higher investment than Google is taking with Android.
No, companies are putting Bing on their devices, you're right. That proves the point of why this entire article is FUD since it is VERIZON (one of the listed parties) putting Bing on there, and there is no way you can call that following Google's wishes with the platform, meaning (as I've been saying)
The point of Android was to keep another company from locking Google out of mobile internet services. Apple is using Google for now, but what happens if Microsoft paid them a ton of money and they switched to Bing? or how blackberry switched to Bing.. Google was at the mercy of these other companies. So they released their own OS with Google a native part of the software. Sure, companies could replace it if they wanted, but it was highly unlikely that ALL of them would do so, which gave Google some breathing room.
Google was ALREADY locked out of china. It was a pretty big deal when it happened. Furthermore when google was IN china in full force, they made little headway against Baidu. If Baidu didn't take android and fork it, they would make their own OS instead. Either way wouldn't benefit Google.
I'm not ignoring you. I just have a different opinion (from a business standpoint). I do agree that the article itself is overblown and stating something that was already known. As far as the fear of Apple ditching Google for Bing if handed cash, I seriously doubt it since the whole reason Apple partnered with Google was to take Microsoft down a few pegs. Also, since things are quite contentious now, why hasn't Apple done that now?
I work in media and unfortunately the pundit that has the most access gets the most ink (warranted or not). Hopefully when some of these cases wind down, writers will take the time for more in depth articles which usually don't require such tight deadlines.
From observing the media, it seems that they favor "giving the ink" to the people with the big personalities, the people who can write the most "interesting" narrative for the events. In the world of SEO, Bounce Rate, and Engagement on the internet, nothing brings the viewers like an extremely biased voice. (see even our current "presidential debates" and who the media focuses on)
And writers are giving rational views (such as Mr. Kincaid's article at TechCrunch). But that won't happen with Florian Mueller, and it wont happen with DED either because they write a narrative, they don't write news articles.
I'm not ignoring you. I just have a different opinion (from a business standpoint). I do agree that the article itself is overblown and stating something that was already known. As far as the fear of Apple ditching Google for Bing if handed cash, I seriously doubt it since the whole reason Apple partnered with Google was to take Microsoft down a few pegs. Also, since things are quite contentious now, why hasn't Apple done that now?
Because Bing turned out to suck and is highly unpopular with most users. It would take a lot of cash for Apple to switch to bing, or Microsoft spending a lot of time making the search useful (it preferences general information websites when you search for location specific data for example). I don't see either of those happening, at least short term. Microsoft is too busy trying to strong arm manufacturers into picking up WP7 to spend that kind of money to improve the service or pay APPLE.
I'm excited to see what Mango brings, and I REALLY want to try it out, but that doesn't mean it will be a commercial success. If they can't get WP7 to take off soon(ish) we might see that Apple deal.
Because Bing turned out to suck and is highly unpopular with most users. It would take a lot of cash for Apple to switch to bing, or Microsoft spending a lot of time making the search useful (it preferences general information websites when you search for location specific data for example). I don't see either of those happening, at least short term. Microsoft is too busy trying to strong arm manufacturers into picking up WP7 to spend that kind of money to improve the service or pay APPLE.
I'm excited to see what Mango brings, and I REALLY want to try it out, but that doesn't mean it will be a commercial success. If they can't get WP7 to take off soon(ish) we might see that Apple deal.
See, this is where there is a disconnect. If Bing sucks/Ed so much that Apple wouldn't use them, then why would Google be afraid of being bumped off? So afraid that it had to make its own competing OS. Apple isn't like other handset makers. Microsoft can't bribe them to use its services like it can with HTC and others. That's why I question the type of investments Google is making in this market.
See, this is where there is a disconnect. If Bing sucks/Ed so much that Apple wouldn't use them, then why would Google be afraid of being bumped off? So afraid that it had to make its own competing OS. Apple isn't like other handset makers. Microsoft can't bribe them to use its services like it can with HTC and others. That's why I question the type of investments Google is making in this market.
Because you have to consider when android was made (before the iphone) in 2004-2005 Microsoft was a major player in the mobile smartphone market. It doesn't MATTER if a service is better than the other, reality shows us that most people will continue using their stock setup (why Internet Explorer is still so popular, for example) So all it would take is for Microsoft to lock Bing as the "must use" search on their phones and then suddenly a huge potential market would be lost.
It already happened with blackberry (you CANNOT change your preferred search engine on Verizon Blackberry's, you can only bookmark Google). Bing Being horrible is what's keeping a company like Apple, who tends to consider things other than the "deal" (such as how it affects user experience) from accepting a bid from Microsoft to include Bing.
In a lot of ways, Apple entering the market helped Google protect their marketshare because it pretty much killed Windows Mobile 6 and opened up the market to new entrants, since HTC/Samsung/Motorola/etc were looking for something that could take on this "next gen" OS. Sure, Microsoft responded with WP7, but it was long after they needed to.
Bing sucking keeps the "tech elite" from adopting it, but it won't stop people from using it if it's presented as the "default" option.
Circumstances haven't changed drastically. Insisting that they do and that Google's going to completely change how they make money by first DESTROYING their primary form of revenue before establishing a second doesn't make it true.
Sorry, but there's no point in arguing with someone who can sit there with a straight face and claim that nothing is different now that Google spent $12.5 BILLION to buy their own cell phone manufacturer. You are clearly so far out of touch with reality that no amount of discussion is going to bring you into the real world.
And yet the media continues to quote this MS troll.
And he never admits he's wrong. He's now spinning this story as "it's not about the Nexus line" after being called out on his flawed analysis. And he's wrong again. He's failing to acknowledge that the Nexus line specifically gives an OEM the "time-to-market advantage" that he goes on and on about. What does he think made HTC the fifth-largest smartphone OEM in the world? According to Mueller, the G1 and the Nexus One had nothing to do with how fast devices like the HTC Desire came to market.
Sorry, but there's no point in arguing with someone who can sit there with a straight face and claim that nothing is different now that Google spent $12.5 BILLION to buy their own cell phone manufacturer. You are clearly so far out of touch with reality that no amount of discussion is going to bring you into the real world.
Until evidence appears otherwise, I'm going to assume that HTC and Samsung, two companies who have the most to lose in this deal, will give a good indication of what's going on. Since BOTH of them came out (AFTER that initial canned statement) in support of the claims and BOTH of them re-affirmed their commitment to android, I'm going to go with that.
It's obvious that some things will change (I think all the manufacturers will be quicker to update their devices now, for example) But you're presenting an argument that Google is going to commit financial suicide in their primary market (advertising) for the CHANCE that they can make money selling phones, and you're presenting NO evidence to support this, just conjecture based off of your opinions on the workings on the company, and your assumption that Google, Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc are ALL lying.
As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?
They didn't set it up that way because they couldn't. Google took a calculated risk. The only way they could get an OS out there and get traction quickly enough was to make it open source. They took a calculated risk that they could provide enough services and enough power through the Google brand that Android forks would not gain too much traction.
And it's not necessarily an altogether wrong assumption. 550 000 activations per day are proving them right.
So far....
As for keeping Bing off. Again, people don't understand the distinction between Android and the Google brand. You want your handset to say "with Google" on the back? Then you have to use Google's services. All of them. No picking and choosing.
If you don't want to do that, you are free to take Android and build your handsets with all of your own applications, as Amazon is being purported to do.
Baidu is an interesting case. They are putting out their own SDK (unlike Amazon...which is essentially skinning Android like HTC Sense or Samsung TouchWiz and removing Google's apps). So that will be a fork. In reality though, it would probably function like a standalone OS (from the consumer perspective). No Google branding. No Android apps. All of Baidu's own proprietary services. Developers will have to build apps for Android and for Yi OS. Will that attract developers and device makers? Perhaps. But how well would Yi OS do outside China?
More broadly speaking, Apple fans always think that Google set out to compete with the iPhone. As a former Symbian user, I disagree. Android has far more similarities to Symbian than it does to iOS. The only reason most Apple fans don't see this, is that so few of them used Symbian before iOS (I'd bet a lot of people went straight from a RAZR to an iPhone). And the goal seems to be to get to where Symbian was in its heydays, when it was more than just an extension of Nokia. If you see where Android is going now, I think that's an accurate portrayal of Andy Rubin's goal.
More broadly speaking, Apple fans always think that Google set out to compete with the iPhone. As a former Symbian user, I disagree. Android has far more similarities to Symbian than it does to iOS. The only reason most Apple fans don't see this, is that so few of them used Symbian before iOS (I'd bet a lot of people went straight from a RAZR to an iPhone). And the goal seems to be to get to where Symbian was in its heydays, when it was more than just an extension of Nokia. If you see where Android is going now, I think that's an accurate portrayal of Andy Rubin's goal.
I'm an Apple fan and I don't think that. In fact, I agree with Menno that Google launched Android to insure that Google got as many eyeballs as possible in the mobile market. What I disagree with is whether or not its current strategy is wise. As for the 550,000 per day activations, it hasn't helped Google that much as far as revenue is concerned.
And yet the media continues to quote this MS troll.
And he never admits he's wrong. He's now spinning this story as "it's not about the Nexus line" after being called out on his flawed analysis. And he's wrong again. He's failing to acknowledge that the Nexus line specifically gives an OEM the "time-to-market advantage" that he goes on and on about. What does he think made HTC the fifth-largest smartphone OEM in the world? According to Mueller, the G1 and the Nexus One had nothing to do with how fast devices like the HTC Desire came to market.
Mueller is a free-lance paid consultant, he blogs as a form of advertising his services. He's not an unbiased journalist or anything of the sort, so quit trying to compare him to one. If you don't like what he says that's fine, but he isn't hiding anything nefarious. He is upfront about his business and why he blogs, and even blogged a couple times about that in the last few weeks. Is it unusual that a consultant does not comment on a client? Not at all, so just make the assumption that one of his clients is MS. If it isn't it is up to him to state otherwise, but it doesn't really change anything either way because you're just creating a red herring argument out of it.
Having read his blog for a little over a year, I find your understanding of his posts which you cite snippets from quite contextually out in left field. Maybe you should read with less axe and grinder? What you are saying he says and what I take from what he writes are definitely of two different universes.
Comments
Google is giving preferential treatment. If they dont offer the same access, within the same requirements to all customers, that is illegal. Apple treats everyone the same way. Consistency is not illegal. Big difference.
Offering preference to one vendor, even a subsidiary that they buy, over it's competitors is monopolistic and, thus, illegal if Google does that.
No, it's not. There is absolutely nothing in the antitrust laws that requires what you're suggesting.
It doesn't just mean motorola. Not only does this go against history and Google's stated intentions but it would COMPLETELY ruin their business model. The goal of android is to get Google services infront of as many eyeballs as possible. Closing android would not only REDUCE eyeballs but would give a HUGE boost to Bing.
The "Flagship" device manufacturer is deciding via a bidding process that the manufacturers participate in.
Why would you think that past history (when Google didn't own Motorola) would determine the future (when Google does own Motorola)? Circumstances have changed drastically, so there's no a priori reason to think that the behavior won't change.
Yes, let's ignore the over FOUR YEARS of device history, upgrade path history, etc. all because of a PAIR of letters in a SINGLE leaked document..
No, let's take the history with a grain of salt because Google just spent $12.5 B to become a hardware manufacturer. Those documents merely show that Google is not above playing favorites.
No, you're insinuating something and providing ZERO evidence for justifying that POV when ALL company statements, and financial data contradicts it.
Actually, Google's financial statements support what he says. Google has spent at least $20B so far on Android (purchase of Android and Motorola, development costs and legal fees). That cost is only going to get higher since 1) Motorola has been posting losses for a couple of years and those losses are now Google's unless it turns Motorola around (gee, I wonder how it will do that), 2) continued development (I doubt after ICS Google is going to say Android is perfect so we don't need to do more work).
Google now refuses to break out revenue it receives from mobile (much less Android) but the last time anyone from Google made a statement about it, it was $1B in a year. So even if those revenues grow, it will still take about 15 years just to recoup its costs and even that is dependent on Google: 1) stopping the hemorrhage at Motorola and 2) winning or negotiating its current lawsuits.
No, it's not. There is absolutely nothing in the antitrust laws that requires what you're suggesting.
Why would you think that past history (when Google didn't own Motorola) would determine the future (when Google does own Motorola)? Circumstances have changed drastically, so there's no a priori reason to think that the behavior won't change.
No, let's take the history with a grain of salt because Google just spent $12.5 B to become a hardware manufacturer. Those documents merely show that Google is not above playing favorites.
Circumstances haven't changed drastically. Insisting that they do and that Google's going to completely change how they make money by first DESTROYING their primary form of revenue before establishing a second doesn't make it true.
The documents show NOTHING that android users (or anyone not willfully ignorant who looked) didn't know of for years.
look, i'm sorry, but now you're just making sh*t up to pretend it doesn't mean simply what it says. they're engineers! (like you could possibly know who the authors really were). their English composition skills are poor! (let's stereotype engineers as grammer-challenged). like i said, you remind me of the bitter-end Nixon defenders. as i wrote way back earlier, it will be fun to see the contortions the Google-aid drinkers go through to explain this away. bottom's up! you can have the last word tonight, i'm going to bed.
Look, if you're going to act like an idiot and pretend that the use of the letters "ie" before Motorola and Verizon is some piece of damning evidence, you should probably look at the whole slide. Particularly, the last bullet point where the slide's author again incorrectly uses "ie" and refers solely to GoogleTV even though the sentence is clearly talking about multiple devices. (Or you could just look at the very beginning of the slide when the author mispells "shepherd".)
Why do Apple fans feel so much hatred toward anything that competes with the big A?
Actually, Google's financial statements support what he says. Google has spent at least $20B so far on Android (purchase of Android and Motorola, development costs and legal fees). That cost is only going to get higher since 1) Motorola has been posting losses for a couple of years and those losses are now Google's unless it turns Motorola around (gee, I wonder how it will do that), 2) continued development (I doubt after ICS Google is going to say Android is perfect so we don't need to do more work).
Google now refuses to break out revenue it receives from mobile (much less Android) but the last time anyone from Google made a statement about it, it was $1B in a year. So even if those revenues grow, it will still take about 15 years just to recoup its costs and even that is dependent on Google: 1) stopping the hemorrhage at Motorola and 2) winning or negotiating its current lawsuits.
And mobile is continuing to grow. There's this thing called "investing in a new market." look it up sometime. Up until the Motorola purchase (they haven't commented since) Google execs have gone on record saying that they've made enough from Android to pay its bills, and well over 50% of that number you quoted is the motorola deal, something they've ALSO gone on record multiple times about why they did it, an you're ignoring all of those reasons.
All you've stated does nothing to counter the fact that Google's primary source of income is ads. and that ANDROID was pushed out to make sure that users would continue using their service. In fact, other court documents (via TIMN) point out that they were concerned with everyone choosing Microsoft OS which would lock them out of the market since those phones would have another search engine (becoming Bing)
Saying "I don't trust reality and I'm going to assume a company will do a full 180 on everything, burning bridges as they go" isn't a valid argument if all you have to back it up is "they wanna be like apple!"
And mobile is continuing to grow. There's this thing called "investing in a new market." look it up sometime.
All you've stated does nothing to counter the fact that Google's primary source of income is ads. and that ANDROID was pushed out to make sure that users would continue using their service. In fact, other court documents (via TIMN) point out that they were concerned with everyone choosing Microsoft OS which would lock them out of the market since those phones would have another search engine (becoming Bing)
Saying "I don't trust reality and I'm going to assume a company will do a full 180 on everything, burning bridges as they go" isn't a valid argument if all you have to back it up is "they wanna be like apple!"
First off, there is no need to be rude to me since I treat everyone on this website with respect.
Secondly, the rate of mobile growth doesn't equate to the same rate of growth in advertising revenue. Its "investing in a new market" is fine until it has over invested which it is beginning to look that is the case. Sure, Google could be like Microsoft when it poured money in the Xbox, but even in that case it is debatable on whether or not Microsoft has recouped its money back AND Microsoft didn't BUY a company with 19,000 workers and revenue losses each and every quarter.
As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?
What's with the 'tude, dude? I was simply offering a reason stated by a writer. I didn't say it was right. In fact, my "um" was actually me questioning whether or not that was such a great prize. Take a Valium.
Apologies. Didn't mean to come off as directed at you. But I really do dislike Florian Mueller. And I really dislike the fact that the media accord him far more credibility than he's due, even though there are far more knowledgeable folks out there.
First off, there is no need to be rude to me since I treat everyone on this website with respect.
Secondly, the rate of mobile growth doesn't equate to the same rate of growth in advertising revenue. Its "investing in a new market" is fine until it has over invested which it is beginning to look that is the case. Sure, Google could be like Microsoft when it poured money in the Xbox, but even in that case it is debatable on whether or not Microsoft has recouped its money back AND Microsoft didn't BUY a company with 19,000 workers and revenue losses each and every quarter.
As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?
I don't intend to be rude, but it's frustrating saying the same thing dozens of times and to have it ignored.
Microsoft started making a profit on the xbox. And they lost over $100 per device on the xbox (minimum) which is a MUCH higher investment than Google is taking with Android.
No, companies are putting Bing on their devices, you're right. That proves the point of why this entire article is FUD since it is VERIZON (one of the listed parties) putting Bing on there, and there is no way you can call that following Google's wishes with the platform, meaning (as I've been saying)
The point of Android was to keep another company from locking Google out of mobile internet services. Apple is using Google for now, but what happens if Microsoft paid them a ton of money and they switched to Bing? or how blackberry switched to Bing.. Google was at the mercy of these other companies. So they released their own OS with Google a native part of the software. Sure, companies could replace it if they wanted, but it was highly unlikely that ALL of them would do so, which gave Google some breathing room.
Google was ALREADY locked out of china. It was a pretty big deal when it happened. Furthermore when google was IN china in full force, they made little headway against Baidu. If Baidu didn't take android and fork it, they would make their own OS instead. Either way wouldn't benefit Google.
Apologies. Didn't mean to come off as directed at you. But I really do dislike Florian Mueller. And I really dislike the fact that the media accord him far more credibility than he's due, even though there are far more knowledgeable folks out there.
I work in media and unfortunately the pundit that has the most access gets the most ink (warranted or not). Hopefully when some of these cases wind down, writers will take the time for more in depth articles which usually don't require such tight deadlines.
I don't intend to be rude, but it's frustrating saying the same thing dozens of times and to have it ignored.
Microsoft started making a profit on the xbox. And they lost over $100 per device on the xbox (minimum) which is a MUCH higher investment than Google is taking with Android.
No, companies are putting Bing on their devices, you're right. That proves the point of why this entire article is FUD since it is VERIZON (one of the listed parties) putting Bing on there, and there is no way you can call that following Google's wishes with the platform, meaning (as I've been saying)
The point of Android was to keep another company from locking Google out of mobile internet services. Apple is using Google for now, but what happens if Microsoft paid them a ton of money and they switched to Bing? or how blackberry switched to Bing.. Google was at the mercy of these other companies. So they released their own OS with Google a native part of the software. Sure, companies could replace it if they wanted, but it was highly unlikely that ALL of them would do so, which gave Google some breathing room.
Google was ALREADY locked out of china. It was a pretty big deal when it happened. Furthermore when google was IN china in full force, they made little headway against Baidu. If Baidu didn't take android and fork it, they would make their own OS instead. Either way wouldn't benefit Google.
I'm not ignoring you. I just have a different opinion (from a business standpoint). I do agree that the article itself is overblown and stating something that was already known. As far as the fear of Apple ditching Google for Bing if handed cash, I seriously doubt it since the whole reason Apple partnered with Google was to take Microsoft down a few pegs. Also, since things are quite contentious now, why hasn't Apple done that now?
As for China, you make a good point.
I work in media and unfortunately the pundit that has the most access gets the most ink (warranted or not). Hopefully when some of these cases wind down, writers will take the time for more in depth articles which usually don't require such tight deadlines.
From observing the media, it seems that they favor "giving the ink" to the people with the big personalities, the people who can write the most "interesting" narrative for the events. In the world of SEO, Bounce Rate, and Engagement on the internet, nothing brings the viewers like an extremely biased voice. (see even our current "presidential debates" and who the media focuses on)
And writers are giving rational views (such as Mr. Kincaid's article at TechCrunch). But that won't happen with Florian Mueller, and it wont happen with DED either because they write a narrative, they don't write news articles.
I'm not ignoring you. I just have a different opinion (from a business standpoint). I do agree that the article itself is overblown and stating something that was already known. As far as the fear of Apple ditching Google for Bing if handed cash, I seriously doubt it since the whole reason Apple partnered with Google was to take Microsoft down a few pegs. Also, since things are quite contentious now, why hasn't Apple done that now?
Because Bing turned out to suck and is highly unpopular with most users. It would take a lot of cash for Apple to switch to bing, or Microsoft spending a lot of time making the search useful (it preferences general information websites when you search for location specific data for example). I don't see either of those happening, at least short term. Microsoft is too busy trying to strong arm manufacturers into picking up WP7 to spend that kind of money to improve the service or pay APPLE.
I'm excited to see what Mango brings, and I REALLY want to try it out, but that doesn't mean it will be a commercial success. If they can't get WP7 to take off soon(ish) we might see that Apple deal.
Because Bing turned out to suck and is highly unpopular with most users. It would take a lot of cash for Apple to switch to bing, or Microsoft spending a lot of time making the search useful (it preferences general information websites when you search for location specific data for example). I don't see either of those happening, at least short term. Microsoft is too busy trying to strong arm manufacturers into picking up WP7 to spend that kind of money to improve the service or pay APPLE.
I'm excited to see what Mango brings, and I REALLY want to try it out, but that doesn't mean it will be a commercial success. If they can't get WP7 to take off soon(ish) we might see that Apple deal.
See, this is where there is a disconnect. If Bing sucks/Ed so much that Apple wouldn't use them, then why would Google be afraid of being bumped off? So afraid that it had to make its own competing OS. Apple isn't like other handset makers. Microsoft can't bribe them to use its services like it can with HTC and others. That's why I question the type of investments Google is making in this market.
See, this is where there is a disconnect. If Bing sucks/Ed so much that Apple wouldn't use them, then why would Google be afraid of being bumped off? So afraid that it had to make its own competing OS. Apple isn't like other handset makers. Microsoft can't bribe them to use its services like it can with HTC and others. That's why I question the type of investments Google is making in this market.
Because you have to consider when android was made (before the iphone) in 2004-2005 Microsoft was a major player in the mobile smartphone market. It doesn't MATTER if a service is better than the other, reality shows us that most people will continue using their stock setup (why Internet Explorer is still so popular, for example) So all it would take is for Microsoft to lock Bing as the "must use" search on their phones and then suddenly a huge potential market would be lost.
It already happened with blackberry (you CANNOT change your preferred search engine on Verizon Blackberry's, you can only bookmark Google). Bing Being horrible is what's keeping a company like Apple, who tends to consider things other than the "deal" (such as how it affects user experience) from accepting a bid from Microsoft to include Bing.
In a lot of ways, Apple entering the market helped Google protect their marketshare because it pretty much killed Windows Mobile 6 and opened up the market to new entrants, since HTC/Samsung/Motorola/etc were looking for something that could take on this "next gen" OS. Sure, Microsoft responded with WP7, but it was long after they needed to.
Bing sucking keeps the "tech elite" from adopting it, but it won't stop people from using it if it's presented as the "default" option.
Circumstances haven't changed drastically. Insisting that they do and that Google's going to completely change how they make money by first DESTROYING their primary form of revenue before establishing a second doesn't make it true.
Sorry, but there's no point in arguing with someone who can sit there with a straight face and claim that nothing is different now that Google spent $12.5 BILLION to buy their own cell phone manufacturer. You are clearly so far out of touch with reality that no amount of discussion is going to bring you into the real world.
http://techrights.org/2010/08/06/rec...n-groklaw-ibm/
Meanwhile, their critics have certainly answered any questions about their biases:
http://www.zdnet.com/news/letter-to-...nection/134733
And yet the media continues to quote this MS troll.
And he never admits he's wrong. He's now spinning this story as "it's not about the Nexus line" after being called out on his flawed analysis. And he's wrong again. He's failing to acknowledge that the Nexus line specifically gives an OEM the "time-to-market advantage" that he goes on and on about. What does he think made HTC the fifth-largest smartphone OEM in the world? According to Mueller, the G1 and the Nexus One had nothing to do with how fast devices like the HTC Desire came to market.
Sorry, but there's no point in arguing with someone who can sit there with a straight face and claim that nothing is different now that Google spent $12.5 BILLION to buy their own cell phone manufacturer. You are clearly so far out of touch with reality that no amount of discussion is going to bring you into the real world.
Until evidence appears otherwise, I'm going to assume that HTC and Samsung, two companies who have the most to lose in this deal, will give a good indication of what's going on. Since BOTH of them came out (AFTER that initial canned statement) in support of the claims and BOTH of them re-affirmed their commitment to android, I'm going to go with that.
It's obvious that some things will change (I think all the manufacturers will be quicker to update their devices now, for example) But you're presenting an argument that Google is going to commit financial suicide in their primary market (advertising) for the CHANCE that they can make money selling phones, and you're presenting NO evidence to support this, just conjecture based off of your opinions on the workings on the company, and your assumption that Google, Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc are ALL lying.
As for keeping Bing off phones, Google didn't set this business model up for that to happen since there are handset makers NOW using Android but using Bing as the default search. Also, how about that whole Baidu forking thing which will basically lock Google out of the fastest growing mobile market in the planet?
They didn't set it up that way because they couldn't. Google took a calculated risk. The only way they could get an OS out there and get traction quickly enough was to make it open source. They took a calculated risk that they could provide enough services and enough power through the Google brand that Android forks would not gain too much traction.
And it's not necessarily an altogether wrong assumption. 550 000 activations per day are proving them right.
So far....
As for keeping Bing off. Again, people don't understand the distinction between Android and the Google brand. You want your handset to say "with Google" on the back? Then you have to use Google's services. All of them. No picking and choosing.
If you don't want to do that, you are free to take Android and build your handsets with all of your own applications, as Amazon is being purported to do.
Baidu is an interesting case. They are putting out their own SDK (unlike Amazon...which is essentially skinning Android like HTC Sense or Samsung TouchWiz and removing Google's apps). So that will be a fork. In reality though, it would probably function like a standalone OS (from the consumer perspective). No Google branding. No Android apps. All of Baidu's own proprietary services. Developers will have to build apps for Android and for Yi OS. Will that attract developers and device makers? Perhaps. But how well would Yi OS do outside China?
More broadly speaking, Apple fans always think that Google set out to compete with the iPhone. As a former Symbian user, I disagree. Android has far more similarities to Symbian than it does to iOS. The only reason most Apple fans don't see this, is that so few of them used Symbian before iOS (I'd bet a lot of people went straight from a RAZR to an iPhone). And the goal seems to be to get to where Symbian was in its heydays, when it was more than just an extension of Nokia. If you see where Android is going now, I think that's an accurate portrayal of Andy Rubin's goal.
More broadly speaking, Apple fans always think that Google set out to compete with the iPhone. As a former Symbian user, I disagree. Android has far more similarities to Symbian than it does to iOS. The only reason most Apple fans don't see this, is that so few of them used Symbian before iOS (I'd bet a lot of people went straight from a RAZR to an iPhone). And the goal seems to be to get to where Symbian was in its heydays, when it was more than just an extension of Nokia. If you see where Android is going now, I think that's an accurate portrayal of Andy Rubin's goal.
I'm an Apple fan and I don't think that. In fact, I agree with Menno that Google launched Android to insure that Google got as many eyeballs as possible in the mobile market. What I disagree with is whether or not its current strategy is wise. As for the 550,000 per day activations, it hasn't helped Google that much as far as revenue is concerned.
One thing to keep in mind too, about Florian Mueller, is that the guy refuses to answer if he's being funded by Microsoft or their subsidiaries.
http://techrights.org/2010/08/06/rec...n-groklaw-ibm/
Meanwhile, their critics have certainly answered any questions about their biases:
http://www.zdnet.com/news/letter-to-...nection/134733
And yet the media continues to quote this MS troll.
And he never admits he's wrong. He's now spinning this story as "it's not about the Nexus line" after being called out on his flawed analysis. And he's wrong again. He's failing to acknowledge that the Nexus line specifically gives an OEM the "time-to-market advantage" that he goes on and on about. What does he think made HTC the fifth-largest smartphone OEM in the world? According to Mueller, the G1 and the Nexus One had nothing to do with how fast devices like the HTC Desire came to market.
Mueller is a free-lance paid consultant, he blogs as a form of advertising his services. He's not an unbiased journalist or anything of the sort, so quit trying to compare him to one. If you don't like what he says that's fine, but he isn't hiding anything nefarious. He is upfront about his business and why he blogs, and even blogged a couple times about that in the last few weeks. Is it unusual that a consultant does not comment on a client? Not at all, so just make the assumption that one of his clients is MS. If it isn't it is up to him to state otherwise, but it doesn't really change anything either way because you're just creating a red herring argument out of it.
Having read his blog for a little over a year, I find your understanding of his posts which you cite snippets from quite contextually out in left field. Maybe you should read with less axe and grinder? What you are saying he says and what I take from what he writes are definitely of two different universes.