It depends on which country you are in which platform you develop on. Those flat world sales and great US sales translate to IOS sales becoming even more non existent in some markets.
That plastic iPhone is obviously hoping to reverse some of that .
EDIT: My comment isn't really about this article in particular, it's more in response to a recurring theme I've picked up on in Daniel's writing.
It must be rough to base a career off the reputation of being an Apple apologist. Sure there's advantages like getting chummy with Apple executives and people inside the company, but can it really be worth forcing yourself to believe crazy, wrong things? I'd hate myself if my ideology made me believe that everything Apple's competitors do is either incompetent, inferior, or malicious. Especially when Google, for example, is doing so many cool things. Maybe Daniel is not aware of this, but it is possible to love Apple and entertain critical thoughts about them. And just because they make great products doesn't mean others can't too.
Daniel Eran Dilger has been writing about Apple and has been pro-Apple wayyyy before Google appeared above the horizon as a major player. Just go rummage around in RoughlyDrafted.com and go back as far as you can to see the perspective, the big picture he brings to the computing landscape, from an era that predates the current mobile "post-PC" era which is still in its infancy. I'm glad that I did, because it revealed to me where the real "crazy, wrong" beliefs emanate from, and it's certainly not DED.
Do the names Paul Thurott, Rob Enderle, John Dvorak, Dan Lyons, Jack Schofield among a host of other anti-Apple "analysts" of yore ring a bell? Well go and read their analyses and predictions over the last decade or two and compare them not only to DED's but to what has actually transpired with the benefit of hindsight. In that era Wintel was their darling, and now it's Android and Samsung. Common denominator? Apple's competition. You have a lot of catch-up reading to do before you appreciate the meaning of "crazy wrong beliefs", dude...
As for Google, once upon a time they had a hardware partner that had all the chops they could have asked for in that department, but they chose to duplicate efforts by diving into their partner's markets unannounced, much to their displeasure, and even while their erstwhile CEO was sitting on their BFF's board of directors.
Be that as it may, the thing is, the web is Google's core competency and this shows glaringly when you compare their web software chops like Maps, Mail, Chrome and Search to half-baked hardware efforts like Android, Google TV, Nexus Q etc. DED just calls it as he sees it. Yes, the truth is bitter atimes, most times actually, but that's why they're known as the Hard Facts.
Daniel Eran Dilger has been writing about Apple and has been pro-Apple wayyyy before Google appeared above the horizon as a major player. Just go rummage around in RoughlyDrafted.com and go back as far as you can to see the perspective, the big picture he brings to the computing landscape, from an era that predates the current mobile "post-PC" era which is still in its infancy. I'm glad that I did, because it revealed to me where the real "crazy, wrong" beliefs emanate from, and it's certainly not DED.
Be that as it may, the thing is, the web is Google's core competency and this shows glaringly when you compare their web software chops like Maps, Mail, Chrome and Search to half-baked hardware efforts like Android, Google TV, Nexus Q etc. DED just calls it as he sees it. Yes, the truth is bitter atimes, most times actually, but that's why they're known as the Hard Facts.
This is what Daniel Eran Dilger really thinks about Google, in his own words and from less than 48 months ago:
"I think Google is a fantastic company on many levels, ranging from its commitment to supporting open, interoperable software development to its core business model that effectively churns out free (well, ad-supported) services that almost always work well and are quite reliable. I use Google’s services every day. I earn some money from Google AdSense from the properties that publish my articles. While I think the tech media sometimes gives Google a free pass in some areas where it deserves scrutiny, Google’s track record in playing fair, in supporting the environment, in treating its employees well, in not immediately selling out in human rights issues to gain access to China, and many other areas is much better than most of its peers."
This is what Daniel Eran Dilger really thinks about Google, in his own words and from less than 48 months ago:
"I think Google is a fantastic company on many levels, ranging from its commitment to supporting open, interoperable software development to its core business model that effectively churns out free (well, ad-supported) services that almost always work well and are quite reliable. I use Google’s services every day. I earn some money from Google AdSense from the properties that publish my articles. While I think the tech media sometimes gives Google a free pass in some areas where it deserves scrutiny, Google’s track record in playing fair, in supporting the environment, in treating its employees well, in not immediately selling out in human rights issues to gain access to China, and many other areas is much better than most of its peers."
i bet there was a big BUT.... starting the next paragraph.
i bet there was a big BUT.... starting the next paragraph.
Surprisingly there was not. This is the next paragraph:
"As for Android, while I see lots of obvious problems that I think the media is ignoring or glossing over in their simplistic desire to write up a compelling underdog piece, I have never described Google’s smartphone plans as being a competitor or threat to the iPhone. My first article on the subject presented that the rumored “gPhone” was not going to be a hardware competitor to the iPhone at all, but rather a software platform that would target Windows Mobile. I was completely right."
How is it that Google slows down the pace of Android and all of the sudden they are "abandoning" it? By the same argument, Apple, until iOS 7, had been abandoning iOS for the last several years. It seems more logical that Android started out behind, but more recently is at a point of refinement rather than evolution.
The discovery that Google's new Chromecast web streaming device is based on Google TV code stripped of Android features provides additional evidence that Google is working to distance itself from the Android platform that the company developed under the management of Andy Rubin.
It looks like a technical decision, not a political one. You yourself said so later on when you hedged your headline and wrote:
Quote:
The most obvious reason for Google to drop compatibility with Android apps on Chromecast is to be able to offer the device at a very low price using minimal hardware; its new "casting" feature that's so simple it doesn't need a user interface or the ability to run apps of its own.
Right. No UI or apps. Using Android in the dongle would be like using iOS in a Lightning cable. Just no need for it.
Quote:
Dalvik is the higher-level virtual machine of Android that runs apps. Android's Dalvik is essentially a rewritten, optimized variant of Sun's Java VM, an issue that has spawned a legal fight between Google and Oracle after the latter acquired Sun and accused Android of infringing its intellectual property.
That should probably be "had spawned", since Oracle lost.
The highlight of that trial was when a non-programmer Oracle lawyer opined about how a single small but identical range check function would take him six months to write, and therefore its existence was key evidence of an intent to copy.
The judge responded that he himself programmed in his spare time, had written such a function a hundred times before, and that a high school kid could do one in no time.
And just now Google/Motorola announced a new smartphone running Android. So much for them ditching it.
The real reason Chromecast isn't running Android - on a low power streaming device, they don't need to. A Linux kernel, their C library and a few random bits is all they need - putting Dalvik on the device would be serious overkill. It's as simple as that.
And just now Google/Motorola announced a new smartphone running Android. So much for them ditching it.
You should know the editorials on here aren't exactly realistic. They're just pandering. Some of the comments are more interesting than the articles. I mean to say that sometimes poor editorial pieces still elicit interesting comments.
How does your link rebut the link you responded to?
There's nothing much that needs rebuttal in the first link. The author of that blog article is in general asking questions based on "if this is true, then could this also happen". He's not making predictions.
Yeah and Amazon barely makes money either. Giving things away is not a profitable business model but what a boon for consumers!
The very best of socialism. Amazon employs thousands, generates business for thousands of companies who employ thousands and provide and awesome almost-at-cost service to consumers while trickling up meager profits to rich investors who contribute nothing.
The only one who seems to be making a fortune is Bezos himself, billions!
Who said it does, it shows Google using OpenSource as an outlet to be less evil, I thought it was funny. Why are questioning my motives?
I didn't question your motives, it's just that there appeared to be no linkage between what you wrote in relation to the position of the OP...that Google's Android business model had failed.
There's nothing much that needs rebuttal in the first link. The author of that blog article is in general asking questions based on "if this is true, then could this also happen". He's not making predictions.
Please, he's being a wimp while also trying to linkbait that Google's android business model failed. It's not a silly position but it's also not very profound or original. It's rather an amusing site unsuccessfully attempting to troll freetards for traffic with the name open source strategies with post like how the Win8 UI is awesome..
The ROI for Android doesn't seem all that positive for Google and they've made some former friends into enemies along the way. Pursuing webapps, chrome and the Google ecosystem in hindsight would have been a better option. Where would Chrome be today if Google had poured the Android billions and technical resources into? You can cut Google out of Android as Amazon and the Chinese have done and perhaps soon even Samsung but you can't cut Google out of Chrome and Google Web Apps. They would have had deeper strategic ties with Apple and likely Nokia and Blackberry as Apple and Samsung (with a linux handset) hammered them.
Microsoft has been executing their mobile vision (such as it is) so poorly that it would not likely have grown share.
Comments
Those flat world sales and great US sales translate to IOS sales becoming even more non existent in some markets.
That plastic iPhone is obviously hoping to reverse some of that .
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJLeuer
EDIT: My comment isn't really about this article in particular, it's more in response to a recurring theme I've picked up on in Daniel's writing.
It must be rough to base a career off the reputation of being an Apple apologist. Sure there's advantages like getting chummy with Apple executives and people inside the company, but can it really be worth forcing yourself to believe crazy, wrong things? I'd hate myself if my ideology made me believe that everything Apple's competitors do is either incompetent, inferior, or malicious. Especially when Google, for example, is doing so many cool things. Maybe Daniel is not aware of this, but it is possible to love Apple and entertain critical thoughts about them. And just because they make great products doesn't mean others can't too.
Daniel Eran Dilger has been writing about Apple and has been pro-Apple wayyyy before Google appeared above the horizon as a major player. Just go rummage around in RoughlyDrafted.com and go back as far as you can to see the perspective, the big picture he brings to the computing landscape, from an era that predates the current mobile "post-PC" era which is still in its infancy. I'm glad that I did, because it revealed to me where the real "crazy, wrong" beliefs emanate from, and it's certainly not DED.
Do the names Paul Thurott, Rob Enderle, John Dvorak, Dan Lyons, Jack Schofield among a host of other anti-Apple "analysts" of yore ring a bell? Well go and read their analyses and predictions over the last decade or two and compare them not only to DED's but to what has actually transpired with the benefit of hindsight. In that era Wintel was their darling, and now it's Android and Samsung. Common denominator? Apple's competition. You have a lot of catch-up reading to do before you appreciate the meaning of "crazy wrong beliefs", dude...
As for Google, once upon a time they had a hardware partner that had all the chops they could have asked for in that department, but they chose to duplicate efforts by diving into their partner's markets unannounced, much to their displeasure, and even while their erstwhile CEO was sitting on their BFF's board of directors.
Be that as it may, the thing is, the web is Google's core competency and this shows glaringly when you compare their web software chops like Maps, Mail, Chrome and Search to half-baked hardware efforts like Android, Google TV, Nexus Q etc. DED just calls it as he sees it. Yes, the truth is bitter atimes, most times actually, but that's why they're known as the Hard Facts.
This is what Daniel Eran Dilger really thinks about Google, in his own words and from less than 48 months ago:
"I think Google is a fantastic company on many levels, ranging from its commitment to supporting open, interoperable software development to its core business model that effectively churns out free (well, ad-supported) services that almost always work well and are quite reliable. I use Google’s services every day. I earn some money from Google AdSense from the properties that publish my articles. While I think the tech media sometimes gives Google a free pass in some areas where it deserves scrutiny, Google’s track record in playing fair, in supporting the environment, in treating its employees well, in not immediately selling out in human rights issues to gain access to China, and many other areas is much better than most of its peers."
i bet there was a big BUT.... starting the next paragraph.
Surprisingly there was not. This is the next paragraph:
"As for Android, while I see lots of obvious problems that I think the media is ignoring or glossing over in their simplistic desire to write up a compelling underdog piece, I have never described Google’s smartphone plans as being a competitor or threat to the iPhone. My first article on the subject presented that the rumored “gPhone” was not going to be a hardware competitor to the iPhone at all, but rather a software platform that would target Windows Mobile. I was completely right."
How is it that Google slows down the pace of Android and all of the sudden they are "abandoning" it? By the same argument, Apple, until iOS 7, had been abandoning iOS for the last several years. It seems more logical that Android started out behind, but more recently is at a point of refinement rather than evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The discovery that Google's new Chromecast web streaming device is based on Google TV code stripped of Android features provides additional evidence that Google is working to distance itself from the Android platform that the company developed under the management of Andy Rubin.
It looks like a technical decision, not a political one. You yourself said so later on when you hedged your headline and wrote:
Quote:
The most obvious reason for Google to drop compatibility with Android apps on Chromecast is to be able to offer the device at a very low price using minimal hardware; its new "casting" feature that's so simple it doesn't need a user interface or the ability to run apps of its own.
Right. No UI or apps. Using Android in the dongle would be like using iOS in a Lightning cable. Just no need for it.
Quote:
Dalvik is the higher-level virtual machine of Android that runs apps. Android's Dalvik is essentially a rewritten, optimized variant of Sun's Java VM, an issue that has spawned a legal fight between Google and Oracle after the latter acquired Sun and accused Android of infringing its intellectual property.
That should probably be "had spawned", since Oracle lost.
The highlight of that trial was when a non-programmer Oracle lawyer opined about how a single small but identical range check function would take him six months to write, and therefore its existence was key evidence of an intent to copy.
The judge responded that he himself programmed in his spare time, had written such a function a hundred times before, and that a high school kid could do one in no time.
Quote:
Danger, will Rubin son!
Kudos for cleverness.
And just now Google/Motorola announced a new smartphone running Android. So much for them ditching it.
The real reason Chromecast isn't running Android - on a low power streaming device, they don't need to. A Linux kernel, their C library and a few random bits is all they need - putting Dalvik on the device would be serious overkill. It's as simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85
And just now Google/Motorola announced a new smartphone running Android. So much for them ditching it.
You should know the editorials on here aren't exactly realistic. They're just pandering. Some of the comments are more interesting than the articles. I mean to say that sometimes poor editorial pieces still elicit interesting comments.
Fully agree. There are many useful posts and points being made here, often with a link.
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/2012/12/04/has-google-android-open-source-business-model-failed/
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxiDriver
http://www.opensourcestrategies.com/2012/12/04/has-google-android-open-source-business-model-failed/
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/10/google-79-patents-opn-pledge/
Thanks for that link. It led me to this article on the book copying of Google, a good read.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/13/let-google-be-a-little-evil/
How does your link rebut the link you responded to?
There's nothing much that needs rebuttal in the first link. The author of that blog article is in general asking questions based on "if this is true, then could this also happen". He's not making predictions.
The only one who seems to be making a fortune is Bezos himself, billions!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Who said it does, it shows Google using OpenSource as an outlet to be less evil, I thought it was funny. Why are questioning my motives?
I didn't question your motives, it's just that there appeared to be no linkage between what you wrote in relation to the position of the OP...that Google's Android business model had failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There's nothing much that needs rebuttal in the first link. The author of that blog article is in general asking questions based on "if this is true, then could this also happen". He's not making predictions.
Please, he's being a wimp while also trying to linkbait that Google's android business model failed. It's not a silly position but it's also not very profound or original. It's rather an amusing site unsuccessfully attempting to troll freetards for traffic with the name open source strategies with post like how the Win8 UI is awesome..
The ROI for Android doesn't seem all that positive for Google and they've made some former friends into enemies along the way. Pursuing webapps, chrome and the Google ecosystem in hindsight would have been a better option. Where would Chrome be today if Google had poured the Android billions and technical resources into? You can cut Google out of Android as Amazon and the Chinese have done and perhaps soon even Samsung but you can't cut Google out of Chrome and Google Web Apps. They would have had deeper strategic ties with Apple and likely Nokia and Blackberry as Apple and Samsung (with a linux handset) hammered them.
Microsoft has been executing their mobile vision (such as it is) so poorly that it would not likely have grown share.