first, isn't the combined market share of all Android guys larger than Samsung? not that it matters
Divided by how many manufacturers? Divided by how many high end phones they make that people who will invest in the ecosystem will buy?
Samsung not strong enough and does not have a wide enough play. Its all about the Google ecosystem which it tightly coupled with Google services. Samsung is free to try to leave, but someone else will take their place. Plenty of Chinese guys around with deep pockets like Huawei, Lenovo and up and comers. Samsung would need to build up effectively a Cloud as large as and with similar services as Apple iCloud including map services to try to compete. We saw how challenging that was right? Not gonna happen. Samsung needs Google to be good enough or someone like Microsoft and we saw how that turn out for Nokia.
Its not about the brand. Not enough people will follow. This has already been proven with the Nokia brand when they switched to Microsoft. People didn't follow. Same will happen with Samsung if they attempt to leave. High Brand recognition is not enough.
Maps are easy -- license Here from Nokia -- including street view.
1. It was no strategy. Samsung went with Tizen because it wasn't ready. And based on the Galaxy Gear smartwatch, it still isn't: it has an unattractive, unwieldly look and feel and its performance isn't that hot. Tizen is at least another year away, and that is presuming that Samsung actually has good software developers. There isn't much evidence that they do, because they haven't done as much with Android as other manufacturers have. Samsung is the biggest with Android but far from the best.
2. Tizen will only work if they can get it to run Android apps from the Google Play store. Maybe they won't need the Google Play app itself, but their own store that would allow people to purchase, download and install Android format files. I just did a cursory search and it looks like they are working on just that: they have a .tpk file format (Android is .apk) and looks like there are .apk to .tpk converter type discussions going on. But it is not just the apps. You would need to be able to download movies, songs, ebooks, you name it.
3. Presuming that Android will continue to be commercially unsuccessful for everyone but Samsung isn't 100% definite. The wild card here is the Google Play line that Google is previewing and will fully launch and back in 2015. Google was using their Nexus line mainly for the purposes of demoing to other OEMs. But in 2015, they will start advertising Google Play devices as heavily as they do Chromecast, and they are going to take a more Apple type approach to things like updates and security on Google Play devices. Android advocates claim that Nexus tablets are better than Samsung and are mystified as to why they do not sell. If they do, and Google begins to move a lot of devices and make money (or at least move enough devices at break-even point that they can make money off their eco-system, the very successful approach that Amazon has taken with Kindle) then the Google Play line would only benefit from Samsung switching to Tizen. And Google would start to care less about the viability of their hardware partners like HTC.
And I will go ahead and add in a #4: ChromeOS computers really started to take off last year, accounting for 9% of computers sold in 2013 according to a link that I posted in another forum (and this source counted tablets as computers). The Google executive responsible for ChromeOS states that A) Google is fully committed to both and has no worries about them competing with or cannibalizing each other at this time and refuses to rule out ChromeOS phones and tablets in the future. Looks like Google is going to let ChromeOS and Android fight it out and ride with whoever wins. And as ChromeOS runs HTML5, a tablet or smartphone running it will support cross-platform apps.
3. Presuming that Android will continue to be commercially unsuccessful for everyone but Samsung isn't 100% definite. The wild card here is the Google Play line that Google is previewing and will fully launch and back in 2015. Google was using their Nexus line mainly for the purposes of demoing to other OEMs. But in 2015, they will start advertising Google Play devices as heavily as they do Chromecast, and they are going to take a more Apple type approach to things like updates and security on Google Play devices.
It'll be interesting to see how seriously Google takes becoming a hardware company. Between my wife and I, we've owned a Galaxy Nexus (manufactured by Samsung), a Nexus 4 (LG), and a Nexus 5 (LG). The Galaxy Nexus was terrible -- dim screen, bad sound, lousy battery life -- but the Nexus 4 and 5 have served us very well. All three, provided you're on a GSM carrier, have had immediate updates straight from Google and no manufacturer overlay or delays. If Google really invests in this, it'll be a player, though they'll need to solve the CDMA carrier problem (Apple did it, so I assume Google can, too).
You said elsewhere in your post that the Nexus tablets were well received, but I've mainly heard that they're sluggish. Perhaps the second generation is better, but for now I'll stick with my iPad.
1. It was no strategy. Samsung went with Tizen because it wasn't ready. And based on the Galaxy Gear smartwatch, it still isn't: it has an unattractive, unwieldly look and feel and its performance isn't that hot. Tizen is at least another year away, and that is presuming that Samsung actually has good software developers. There isn't much evidence that they do, because they haven't done as much with Android as other manufacturers have. Samsung is the biggest with Android but far from the best.
[Android also has an "unattractive, unwieldly look and feel and its performance isn't that hot"]
2. Tizen will only work if they can get it to run Android apps from the Google Play store. Maybe they won't need the Google Play app itself, but their own store that would allow people to purchase, download and install Android format files. I just did a cursory search and it looks like they are working on just that: they have a .tpk file format (Android is .apk) and looks like there are .apk to .tpk converter type discussions going on. But it is not just the apps. You would need to be able to download movies, songs, ebooks, you name it.
[RIM managed to run Android applets on its Playbook. Hosting Java apps isn’t exactly rocket science, especially when you have FOSS implementations of the Java-like platform you’re hosting.]
3. Presuming that Android will continue to be commercially unsuccessful for everyone but Samsung isn't 100% definite. The wild card here is the Google Play line that Google is previewing and will fully launch and back in 2015. Google was using their Nexus line mainly for the purposes of demoing to other OEMs. But in 2015, they will start advertising Google Play devices as heavily as they do Chromecast, and they are going to take a more Apple type approach to things like updates and security on Google Play devices. Android advocates claim that Nexus tablets are better than Samsung and are mystified as to why they do not sell. If they do, and Google begins to move a lot of devices and make money (or at least move enough devices at break-even point that they can make money off their eco-system, the very successful approach that Amazon has taken with Kindle) then the Google Play line would only benefit from Samsung switching to Tizen. And Google would start to care less about the viability of their hardware partners like HTC.
[You have a lot of faith in the hardware aspirations of a company that has only managed to ever fail in hardware, even when working with formerly successful hardware companies or simply giving them reference designs to implement on their own, like Google TV or Honeycomb tablets.
Google’s level of failure is astounding. Considering that established, proven hardware makers from Palm to Nokia to RIM to HTC to Sony have all failed to accomplish their plans, I find it remarkable that you believe a non-stop failure like Google will be able to accomplish whatever they blow out of their PR hole.]
And I will go ahead and add in a #4: ChromeOS computers really started to take off last year, accounting for 9% of computers sold in 2013 according to a link that I posted in another forum (and this source counted tablets as computers). The Google executive responsible for ChromeOS states that A) Google is fully committed to both and has no worries about them competing with or cannibalizing each other at this time and refuses to rule out ChromeOS phones and tablets in the future. Looks like Google is going to let ChromeOS and Android fight it out and ride with whoever wins. And as ChromeOS runs HTML5, a tablet or smartphone running it will support cross-platform apps.
[Chromebooks are not 9% of PC sales. They currently show up as 0.2% of web traffic, compared to the 1.9% representation from Linux machines. Just because some blogger republishes some metric that defies reality doesn’t make it true.
Also, rich web web apps in HTML5 failed to appear. Even Facebook and similar sites with a vested interest in reaching large audiences have abandoned the idea of cross platform web apps and have focused on native iOS apps and Android applets.]
Are there forums where I can read up on this case in layman detail without the many many instances of circlejerky comments and super biased POV articles? All the Android sites don't discuss this case (or anything Apple at all really, and never Apple negative outside of trollish comments), the tech sites give minor snippets but usually link to other minor snippet articles or articles that are not meant for laymen...
I'd like to know more about it and actually learn more about it.
I've lurked a while and while the non-competitor-centric news is cool, whenever discussion that involves a competitor arises it's hard to wade through the circlejerky comments....and the insults....and the useless sarcasm to get to any points.
There were over 200 million Android phones sold last quarter. But Samsung only sold about 80 million Android phones last quarter.
Samsung may be the largest Android manufacturer... but they're clearly not the only Android manufacturer.
No but they are the only one making money selling Android phones. HTC will be out of business very soon. LG doesn't really care, as their main business is other stuff. Moto -- who knows?
But even by your numbers, Samsung, one company, had 40% of Android sales. And as far as profits, they were near 100% -- if not over -- when it came to Android.
So you really think that something like Android can exist without Samsung?
ETA: Yes, Android will survive. It will survive like the Linux desktop survives among the consumer base. Yeah, it will be there, people will talk about it, but it will have zero influence.
I still think the primary reason people buy android is low-cost. Sure, there are people who buy anything except Apple as they still believe that Apple are expensive.
They don't realise that in real-terms (actual value obtained from the eco-system and length of life) Apple equipment is much cheaper than the alternatives.
As a case in point, my last MacBook Pro lasted me over six years before I had to upgrade (I only had to upgrade as I needed the latest iOS SDK). It's STILL a perfectly good laptop, better than the new PC laptop I just got given.
My family still happily use my cast-off iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS. I have an iPhone 4S, my other half has a iPhone 4. We didn't get iPhone5/5C/5S as we don't really want bigger phones. Whilst I will be getting us both iPhone6 devices this year, I don't need to. I'll primarily be getting them as I choose to move all my personal kit to Thunderbolt and so we can make use of the latest iOS capabilities such as AirDrop on all of them. I also expect new features and integration with new products as yet unreleased to require latest devices and I can't wait to buy those too
Of course when I get the iPhone 6 devices our iPhone4 & 4S will be given to other family members (this common-practice among iPhone users expands the number of iOS users annually).
How long do Android phones last as usable devices? I've never heard of Android phones being passed on for re-use; I believe more Android users trade them in or sell them against their next contract.
Of course as Samsung move away from Android, Android market-share will drop, as their Tizen market-share ramps up (if it's any good that is). I don't think Samsung's exit from Android will increase iOS adoption immediately but it will make the case for developers to focus purely upon iOS even stronger and re-enforce that iOS is the run-away leader and best of the best. Good for Apple in my opinion.
I'll be happy if Apple keep being the most profitable mobile phone company by providing the best products.
I'm not sure if Android now would survive healthily without Samsung. Truthbetold their thievery is why Android is remotely strong. They kept them afloat enough during the super ugly laggy pre-4.0 era and were the only OEM smart enough to wrestle some power from the carriers thereby avoiding brand dilution like former heavyandroidweights HTC and Motorola did.
They managed to make Galaxy a singular brand (despite the many phones) keeping it relevant. People rarely ask for Android phones they ask for Samsung sadly.
I remember on Android forums people predicting this future. HTC was a fan favorite but they were constantly releasing uninspired junk. They'd have a success (desire, incredible) and then release a half added version 2 which turned people off and pushed them away.
I dunno if there is any way for anyone to pick up the slack if Samsung were to leave today. I can see many people moving to iPhone before they buy an HTC One or Moto X or whatever may come.
I'm a Nexus guy myself and I despise Samsung and if Android went under I'd pick up an iPhone in a heartbeat.
HTC was about a year or two too late with the One line.
That is the reason I believe they'll ditch Android especially since Google hasn't been hit with any lawsuits yet.
Android was hit with a pretty large lawsuit from Oracle who claimed in their 'rush to market' Google stole Java code. During the trial 'things came out' as they do and there were a total of 9 lines of code found to be identical (out of well over a million). Things didn't go well for Oracle.
Oracle tried (and still tries) to maintain copyright assertion. Had that gone Oracle's way, much as people here hate Google, it would have been a disaster for consumers. Basically Oracle was arguing they owned rights to the 'headers' and it didn't matter if code was rewritten.
If the environment had been the same in the early days of computers someone would likely have patented 'arrays' and 'lists' and 'sorting' and if they chose not to license them- basically nobody else could realistically write code. If Oracle created a creative new sorting method, today they would patent it. Google rewrote its own sort. Oracles argument was basically that Google can't sort at all (and call it a sort) because they own the 'title' of the chapter or 'sort' itself. Blech.
Building an Android phone does make those building it infringe on some fairly flimsy Microsoft patents. MS was fairly brilliant in going after small fish with no resources to fight back and forcing licensing terms on Android. They then bagged a whale- Samsung. The terms of that deal remain sketchy- but they are generally thought to be very lenient toward Samsung. By bagging Samsung it makes others less likely to question the validity of the patents. Since others don't get those same bargain rates, it actually serves as a competitive edge for Samsung against other Android manufacturers. It is an obvious 'inefficiency' in the system and could be wiped out with competition- but Samsung's competition outside Android is Apple, whose margins are so high they don't impact Samsung. The same can't be said for the up and coming Chinese companies which are only getting started and going to be the real threat to Samsung.
With that baggage on Android I'd say it is very likely that it will eventually be replaced. Actually its branding is strong enough that it will very likely just be supplanted. Chrome is fairly likely on Googles side and Samsung has pokers in the fire with Tizen. Neither will 'kill' Android in that either would be very likely to ship with an emulater and be 100% Android compatible and only add additional capabilities with their newer tools in the toolbox.
It is a little comical for people to think that Android is going to be wiped out by something inferior. If it is better, I'm all for it wiping out Android.
I've been saying this since day one. Samsung is just blowing smoke at Fandroids long enough to ride them like the town mules they so they can put out their own ecosystem and jettison Android when the first opportunity comes. Fandroids were just lame tools that Samsung was so obviously using.
It's an efficient plan. With Samsung being Android's largest partner, Android will wilt and die a long-needed death as the botched iClone experiment it was once Samsung goes to TizenOS.
The even better part is that since Samsung absolutely sucks at anything in hardware, and especially software, their mobile business will pretty much implode shortly afterwards.
It's all going right on schedule. Fandroids are beginning to look like deers staring at headlights, and they deserve to be!
I agree that Samsung sucks in software (I absolutely hate Samsung software) but they definitely don't suck in hardware. Samsung is a very good component manufacturer. There is a reason why Apple keeps coming back to Samsung, quality components with high production yields.
So how does Intel fit into all of this? Is their development of a 64-bit Android kernel supposed to be some sort of Tizen back door as well?
Here we have the ASUS TF103C using Intel's x86-64 Z3745 SoC. This is one of the first few 64-bit Android tablets.
How I see it in Intel's case it was pretty much a necessity. Although Android's Linux kernel does natively support ARM's AArch64 (the upper layers of Android do need some modification which are the Application Framework, Libraries and Android Runtime) it doesn't support Intel's Merrifield 64bit architecture. Therefor Intel had no choice but to adapt the kernel and the upper layers for their Merrifield SoC, else they wouldn't be able to use the SoC at all. Android in it's current state can run on an ARMv8 chip, though without adapting the upper layers it won't make complete use of the 64bit capabilities (it would basically have the same performance as running on AArch32).
Which I'm all for. The sooner Java gets the boot the better.
C and it's derivatives will do so much more for developers and should have been something Google did in the first place like Apple and MS did by carrying C/C#/Objective-C over.
Aren't C#./.NET programs also run using a virtual machine (the Common Language Runtime)? What are the main advantages of C# over Java?
Aren't C#./.NET programs also run using a virtual machine (the Common Language Runtime)? What are the main advantages of C# over Java?
Yes they are.
As to immediate differences.
C# is compile before distribution vs Java's Compile at Run Time. Java is made more portable by that design but also incredibly generic and hardware limited in a way. C# and it's C bretheren compiling before distribution can lead to some portability problems because they compile for their target hardware, but they make MUCH better use of the hardware than Java does. It also means Java apps are slower on startup than C# equivalent apps.
The C's also because of the above have better low level access and functions.
C# is a lot friendlier with other languages than Java is. Java can't natively interact with other languages, it has to go through something like COBRA or JNI. Java is also fairly restrictive on elements and words that you can use in JNI. C#'s design made it incredibly friendly for cross language interoperability. It still needs extensions depending on the language, but nowhere near Java amount.
C# Evolves a lot faster than Java does. It is also more feature rich. Before C#/.NET 3.0 the opposite was true.
Java's Open Source Nature naturally gives it more reach than C# does, however thanks to the work of several open source projects such as Mono, C# has been extended past Windows, and onto platforms like Linux, BSD, Solaris and iOS.
C# has better support for Parallelism than Java does.
Also LINQ is one the greatest and most distinguishing features available to the .NET framework.(Though it has seen ports to other languages, Java included.)
Anything else would basically amount to throwing around pure technobabble words.
I'm sure there are advantages to Java depending on the application, but I'm personally not a big fan of the language.
I personally know an older lady friend who has to write her apps in Java first and then translate them over to C++ because she dislikes the syntax of the latter greatly.
I agree that Samsung sucks in software (I absolutely hate Samsung software) but they definitely don't suck in hardware. Samsung is a very good component manufacturer. There is a reason why Apple keeps coming back to Samsung, quality components with high production yields.
Manufacture and/or designer? Meaning, Apple seems to hire out every bit of their HW manufacturing but they excellent design teams, as noted by pretty much everything they sell, save for their standard headphones.
Samsung's software does suck. They have zero ability to write quality software, or maintain that which is already out in the field. That's a given, and I will not go into it further since there's countless of articles out there that prove just that.
Samsung is Android's largest partner. Samsung is not competing with Apple, more so than they are decimating their Android counterparts. They are barely making any profits on their Android offerings since Samsung is taking all of it.
I can understand your viewpoint about who makes-out after all this. I really believe that with Samsung having the brand, and market share that most users will simply (and blindly) continue with Samsung mobile when they move to TizenOS thinking there's no difference, and essentially make Android a has-been contender. The other Android makers will either give up when that time comes, or they will become insignificant.
Could you provide two links to reviews of the Wave S8500 that say the Bada OS sucks.
Comments
Maps are easy -- license Here from Nokia -- including street view.
Three problems with this article.
1. It was no strategy. Samsung went with Tizen because it wasn't ready. And based on the Galaxy Gear smartwatch, it still isn't: it has an unattractive, unwieldly look and feel and its performance isn't that hot. Tizen is at least another year away, and that is presuming that Samsung actually has good software developers. There isn't much evidence that they do, because they haven't done as much with Android as other manufacturers have. Samsung is the biggest with Android but far from the best.
2. Tizen will only work if they can get it to run Android apps from the Google Play store. Maybe they won't need the Google Play app itself, but their own store that would allow people to purchase, download and install Android format files. I just did a cursory search and it looks like they are working on just that: they have a .tpk file format (Android is .apk) and looks like there are .apk to .tpk converter type discussions going on. But it is not just the apps. You would need to be able to download movies, songs, ebooks, you name it.
3. Presuming that Android will continue to be commercially unsuccessful for everyone but Samsung isn't 100% definite. The wild card here is the Google Play line that Google is previewing and will fully launch and back in 2015. Google was using their Nexus line mainly for the purposes of demoing to other OEMs. But in 2015, they will start advertising Google Play devices as heavily as they do Chromecast, and they are going to take a more Apple type approach to things like updates and security on Google Play devices. Android advocates claim that Nexus tablets are better than Samsung and are mystified as to why they do not sell. If they do, and Google begins to move a lot of devices and make money (or at least move enough devices at break-even point that they can make money off their eco-system, the very successful approach that Amazon has taken with Kindle) then the Google Play line would only benefit from Samsung switching to Tizen. And Google would start to care less about the viability of their hardware partners like HTC.
And I will go ahead and add in a #4: ChromeOS computers really started to take off last year, accounting for 9% of computers sold in 2013 according to a link that I posted in another forum (and this source counted tablets as computers). The Google executive responsible for ChromeOS states that A) Google is fully committed to both and has no worries about them competing with or cannibalizing each other at this time and
refuses to rule out ChromeOS phones and tablets in the future. Looks like Google is going to let ChromeOS and Android fight it out and ride with whoever wins. And as ChromeOS runs HTML5, a tablet or smartphone running it will support cross-platform apps.
3. Presuming that Android will continue to be commercially unsuccessful for everyone but Samsung isn't 100% definite. The wild card here is the Google Play line that Google is previewing and will fully launch and back in 2015. Google was using their Nexus line mainly for the purposes of demoing to other OEMs. But in 2015, they will start advertising Google Play devices as heavily as they do Chromecast, and they are going to take a more Apple type approach to things like updates and security on Google Play devices.
It'll be interesting to see how seriously Google takes becoming a hardware company. Between my wife and I, we've owned a Galaxy Nexus (manufactured by Samsung), a Nexus 4 (LG), and a Nexus 5 (LG). The Galaxy Nexus was terrible -- dim screen, bad sound, lousy battery life -- but the Nexus 4 and 5 have served us very well. All three, provided you're on a GSM carrier, have had immediate updates straight from Google and no manufacturer overlay or delays. If Google really invests in this, it'll be a player, though they'll need to solve the CDMA carrier problem (Apple did it, so I assume Google can, too).
You said elsewhere in your post that the Nexus tablets were well received, but I've mainly heard that they're sluggish. Perhaps the second generation is better, but for now I'll stick with my iPad.
Three problems with this article.
1. It was no strategy. Samsung went with Tizen because it wasn't ready. And based on the Galaxy Gear smartwatch, it still isn't: it has an unattractive, unwieldly look and feel and its performance isn't that hot. Tizen is at least another year away, and that is presuming that Samsung actually has good software developers. There isn't much evidence that they do, because they haven't done as much with Android as other manufacturers have. Samsung is the biggest with Android but far from the best.
[Android also has an "unattractive, unwieldly look and feel and its performance isn't that hot"]
2. Tizen will only work if they can get it to run Android apps from the Google Play store. Maybe they won't need the Google Play app itself, but their own store that would allow people to purchase, download and install Android format files. I just did a cursory search and it looks like they are working on just that: they have a .tpk file format (Android is .apk) and looks like there are .apk to .tpk converter type discussions going on. But it is not just the apps. You would need to be able to download movies, songs, ebooks, you name it.
[RIM managed to run Android applets on its Playbook. Hosting Java apps isn’t exactly rocket science, especially when you have FOSS implementations of the Java-like platform you’re hosting.]
3. Presuming that Android will continue to be commercially unsuccessful for everyone but Samsung isn't 100% definite. The wild card here is the Google Play line that Google is previewing and will fully launch and back in 2015. Google was using their Nexus line mainly for the purposes of demoing to other OEMs. But in 2015, they will start advertising Google Play devices as heavily as they do Chromecast, and they are going to take a more Apple type approach to things like updates and security on Google Play devices. Android advocates claim that Nexus tablets are better than Samsung and are mystified as to why they do not sell. If they do, and Google begins to move a lot of devices and make money (or at least move enough devices at break-even point that they can make money off their eco-system, the very successful approach that Amazon has taken with Kindle) then the Google Play line would only benefit from Samsung switching to Tizen. And Google would start to care less about the viability of their hardware partners like HTC.
[You have a lot of faith in the hardware aspirations of a company that has only managed to ever fail in hardware, even when working with formerly successful hardware companies or simply giving them reference designs to implement on their own, like Google TV or Honeycomb tablets.
Google’s level of failure is astounding. Considering that established, proven hardware makers from Palm to Nokia to RIM to HTC to Sony have all failed to accomplish their plans, I find it remarkable that you believe a non-stop failure like Google will be able to accomplish whatever they blow out of their PR hole.]
And I will go ahead and add in a #4: ChromeOS computers really started to take off last year, accounting for 9% of computers sold in 2013 according to a link that I posted in another forum (and this source counted tablets as computers). The Google executive responsible for ChromeOS states that A) Google is fully committed to both and has no worries about them competing with or cannibalizing each other at this time and
refuses to rule out ChromeOS phones and tablets in the future. Looks like Google is going to let ChromeOS and Android fight it out and ride with whoever wins. And as ChromeOS runs HTML5, a tablet or smartphone running it will support cross-platform apps.
[Chromebooks are not 9% of PC sales. They currently show up as 0.2% of web traffic, compared to the 1.9% representation from Linux machines. Just because some blogger republishes some metric that defies reality doesn’t make it true.
Also, rich web web apps in HTML5 failed to appear. Even Facebook and similar sites with a vested interest in reaching large audiences have abandoned the idea of cross platform web apps and have focused on native iOS apps and Android applets.]
Are there forums where I can read up on this case in layman detail without the many many instances of circlejerky comments and super biased POV articles? All the Android sites don't discuss this case (or anything Apple at all really, and never Apple negative outside of trollish comments), the tech sites give minor snippets but usually link to other minor snippet articles or articles that are not meant for laymen...
I'd like to know more about it and actually learn more about it.
I've lurked a while and while the non-competitor-centric news is cool, whenever discussion that involves a competitor arises it's hard to wade through the circlejerky comments....and the insults....and the useless sarcasm to get to any points.
Is this a global warming question?
It’s an eventually you run out of food when the only part of the food chain left is things that only eat other things (recursively) question.
Huh?
There were over 200 million Android phones sold last quarter. But Samsung only sold about 80 million Android phones last quarter.
Samsung may be the largest Android manufacturer... but they're clearly not the only Android manufacturer.
Huh?
There were over 200 million Android phones sold last quarter. But Samsung only sold about 80 million Android phones last quarter.
Samsung may be the largest Android manufacturer... but they're clearly not the only Android manufacturer.
No but they are the only one making money selling Android phones. HTC will be out of business very soon. LG doesn't really care, as their main business is other stuff. Moto -- who knows?
But even by your numbers, Samsung, one company, had 40% of Android sales. And as far as profits, they were near 100% -- if not over -- when it came to Android.
So you really think that something like Android can exist without Samsung?
ETA: Yes, Android will survive. It will survive like the Linux desktop survives among the consumer base. Yeah, it will be there, people will talk about it, but it will have zero influence.
They don't realise that in real-terms (actual value obtained from the eco-system and length of life) Apple equipment is much cheaper than the alternatives.
As a case in point, my last MacBook Pro lasted me over six years before I had to upgrade (I only had to upgrade as I needed the latest iOS SDK). It's STILL a perfectly good laptop, better than the new PC laptop I just got given.
My family still happily use my cast-off iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS. I have an iPhone 4S, my other half has a iPhone 4. We didn't get iPhone5/5C/5S as we don't really want bigger phones. Whilst I will be getting us both iPhone6 devices this year, I don't need to. I'll primarily be getting them as I choose to move all my personal kit to Thunderbolt and so we can make use of the latest iOS capabilities such as AirDrop on all of them. I also expect new features and integration with new products as yet unreleased to require latest devices and I can't wait to buy those too
Of course when I get the iPhone 6 devices our iPhone4 & 4S will be given to other family members (this common-practice among iPhone users expands the number of iOS users annually).
How long do Android phones last as usable devices? I've never heard of Android phones being passed on for re-use; I believe more Android users trade them in or sell them against their next contract.
Of course as Samsung move away from Android, Android market-share will drop, as their Tizen market-share ramps up (if it's any good that is). I don't think Samsung's exit from Android will increase iOS adoption immediately but it will make the case for developers to focus purely upon iOS even stronger and re-enforce that iOS is the run-away leader and best of the best. Good for Apple in my opinion.
I'll be happy if Apple keep being the most profitable mobile phone company by providing the best products.
They managed to make Galaxy a singular brand (despite the many phones) keeping it relevant. People rarely ask for Android phones they ask for Samsung sadly.
I remember on Android forums people predicting this future. HTC was a fan favorite but they were constantly releasing uninspired junk. They'd have a success (desire, incredible) and then release a half added version 2 which turned people off and pushed them away.
I dunno if there is any way for anyone to pick up the slack if Samsung were to leave today. I can see many people moving to iPhone before they buy an HTC One or Moto X or whatever may come.
I'm a Nexus guy myself and I despise Samsung and if Android went under I'd pick up an iPhone in a heartbeat.
HTC was about a year or two too late with the One line.
Sucks.
But anyway, as we're here, I must add that I can't wait to see Samsung competing with Apple, (Microsoft?) and Google at once ;-)
That is the reason I believe they'll ditch Android especially since Google hasn't been hit with any lawsuits yet.
Android was hit with a pretty large lawsuit from Oracle who claimed in their 'rush to market' Google stole Java code. During the trial 'things came out' as they do and there were a total of 9 lines of code found to be identical (out of well over a million). Things didn't go well for Oracle.
Oracle tried (and still tries) to maintain copyright assertion. Had that gone Oracle's way, much as people here hate Google, it would have been a disaster for consumers. Basically Oracle was arguing they owned rights to the 'headers' and it didn't matter if code was rewritten.
If the environment had been the same in the early days of computers someone would likely have patented 'arrays' and 'lists' and 'sorting' and if they chose not to license them- basically nobody else could realistically write code. If Oracle created a creative new sorting method, today they would patent it. Google rewrote its own sort. Oracles argument was basically that Google can't sort at all (and call it a sort) because they own the 'title' of the chapter or 'sort' itself. Blech.
Building an Android phone does make those building it infringe on some fairly flimsy Microsoft patents. MS was fairly brilliant in going after small fish with no resources to fight back and forcing licensing terms on Android. They then bagged a whale- Samsung. The terms of that deal remain sketchy- but they are generally thought to be very lenient toward Samsung. By bagging Samsung it makes others less likely to question the validity of the patents. Since others don't get those same bargain rates, it actually serves as a competitive edge for Samsung against other Android manufacturers. It is an obvious 'inefficiency' in the system and could be wiped out with competition- but Samsung's competition outside Android is Apple, whose margins are so high they don't impact Samsung. The same can't be said for the up and coming Chinese companies which are only getting started and going to be the real threat to Samsung.
With that baggage on Android I'd say it is very likely that it will eventually be replaced. Actually its branding is strong enough that it will very likely just be supplanted. Chrome is fairly likely on Googles side and Samsung has pokers in the fire with Tizen. Neither will 'kill' Android in that either would be very likely to ship with an emulater and be 100% Android compatible and only add additional capabilities with their newer tools in the toolbox.
It is a little comical for people to think that Android is going to be wiped out by something inferior. If it is better, I'm all for it wiping out Android.
I've been saying this since day one. Samsung is just blowing smoke at Fandroids long enough to ride them like the town mules they so they can put out their own ecosystem and jettison Android when the first opportunity comes. Fandroids were just lame tools that Samsung was so obviously using.
It's an efficient plan. With Samsung being Android's largest partner, Android will wilt and die a long-needed death as the botched iClone experiment it was once Samsung goes to TizenOS.
The even better part is that since Samsung absolutely sucks at anything in hardware, and especially software, their mobile business will pretty much implode shortly afterwards.
It's all going right on schedule. Fandroids are beginning to look like deers staring at headlights, and they deserve to be!
I agree that Samsung sucks in software (I absolutely hate Samsung software) but they definitely don't suck in hardware. Samsung is a very good component manufacturer. There is a reason why Apple keeps coming back to Samsung, quality components with high production yields.
So how does Intel fit into all of this? Is their development of a 64-bit Android kernel supposed to be some sort of Tizen back door as well?
Here we have the ASUS TF103C using Intel's x86-64 Z3745 SoC. This is one of the first few 64-bit Android tablets.
So how does Intel fit into all of this? Is their development of a 64-bit Android kernel supposed to be some sort of Tizen back door as well?
Here we have the ASUS TF103C using Intel's x86-64 Z3745 SoC. This is one of the first few 64-bit Android tablets.
How I see it in Intel's case it was pretty much a necessity. Although Android's Linux kernel does natively support ARM's AArch64 (the upper layers of Android do need some modification which are the Application Framework, Libraries and Android Runtime) it doesn't support Intel's Merrifield 64bit architecture. Therefor Intel had no choice but to adapt the kernel and the upper layers for their Merrifield SoC, else they wouldn't be able to use the SoC at all. Android in it's current state can run on an ARMv8 chip, though without adapting the upper layers it won't make complete use of the 64bit capabilities (it would basically have the same performance as running on AArch32).
Not because of "failure," but because of infringement issues: Google appears ready to ditch Android over its intellectual property issues
Which I'm all for. The sooner Java gets the boot the better.
C and it's derivatives will do so much more for developers and should have been something Google did in the first place like Apple and MS did by carrying C/C#/Objective-C over.
Aren't C#./.NET programs also run using a virtual machine (the Common Language Runtime)? What are the main advantages of C# over Java?
Aren't C#./.NET programs also run using a virtual machine (the Common Language Runtime)? What are the main advantages of C# over Java?
Yes they are.As to immediate differences.
C# is compile before distribution vs Java's Compile at Run Time. Java is made more portable by that design but also incredibly generic and hardware limited in a way. C# and it's C bretheren compiling before distribution can lead to some portability problems because they compile for their target hardware, but they make MUCH better use of the hardware than Java does. It also means Java apps are slower on startup than C# equivalent apps.
The C's also because of the above have better low level access and functions.
C# is a lot friendlier with other languages than Java is. Java can't natively interact with other languages, it has to go through something like COBRA or JNI. Java is also fairly restrictive on elements and words that you can use in JNI. C#'s design made it incredibly friendly for cross language interoperability. It still needs extensions depending on the language, but nowhere near Java amount.
C# Evolves a lot faster than Java does. It is also more feature rich. Before C#/.NET 3.0 the opposite was true.
Java's Open Source Nature naturally gives it more reach than C# does, however thanks to the work of several open source projects such as Mono, C# has been extended past Windows, and onto platforms like Linux, BSD, Solaris and iOS.
C# has better support for Parallelism than Java does.
Also LINQ is one the greatest and most distinguishing features available to the .NET framework.(Though it has seen ports to other languages, Java included.)
Anything else would basically amount to throwing around pure technobabble words.
I'm sure there are advantages to Java depending on the application, but I'm personally not a big fan of the language.
I personally know an older lady friend who has to write her apps in Java first and then translate them over to C++ because she dislikes the syntax of the latter greatly.
Manufacture and/or designer? Meaning, Apple seems to hire out every bit of their HW manufacturing but they excellent design teams, as noted by pretty much everything they sell, save for their standard headphones.
Samsung's software does suck. They have zero ability to write quality software, or maintain that which is already out in the field. That's a given, and I will not go into it further since there's countless of articles out there that prove just that.
Samsung is Android's largest partner. Samsung is not competing with Apple, more so than they are decimating their Android counterparts. They are barely making any profits on their Android offerings since Samsung is taking all of it.
I can understand your viewpoint about who makes-out after all this. I really believe that with Samsung having the brand, and market share that most users will simply (and blindly) continue with Samsung mobile when they move to TizenOS thinking there's no difference, and essentially make Android a has-been contender. The other Android makers will either give up when that time comes, or they will become insignificant.
Could you provide two links to reviews of the Wave S8500 that say the Bada OS sucks.