This is particularly interesting given how much Microsoft seems to be investing into Android. The most recent Windows 10 update really seems to go out of its way to leverage Android integration. Prior to reading this article I was imagining a scenario where MS would slowly chip away at Google’s control of Android over the next several years - but if Google is slowly walking away from Android this dynamic could get very interesting.
Wow someone here is really worried about Google for some reason. Not sure why.
And boy somebody else is really worried so much so that they routinely troll DED’s opinion column every single week just to say “But you’re wrong!” over and over. Without fail. Compulsively. Without ever tackling the arguments within the piece.
Because more often than not there’s no point to wasting time tackling the piece. You have to admit though so many of these “editorials” are focused on Google. I simply don’t understand the obsession. Especially on a site that’s called Apple Insider.
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
So, it doesn't matter to Google if Android is profitable. What matters is that they propagated their systems to hundreds of millions of users (far more than Apple has) and have been harvesting their data ever since. They could give Android away (which they did) and still make money from it.
And, for the migration to Chrome: It seems to me that Chrome is best suited to a network style architecture and, with 5G on the horizon, that will only become bigger and stronger. Those trying to cling to the old "Personal computer" paradigm will likely be left behind as people migrate completely (back) into cloud computing.
To date, cloud computing has been hindered by expensive and limited communication issues. 5G promises to open that up. And, riding the wave will be those vendors who take advantage of it. That may be Chrome more than any other OS. (And, I don't mean to rule iOS or MacOS out. Apple is obviously opening them up into cloud computing as well. We'll have to see how they do.)
so companies using AOSP began to develop their own services. There were browsers, maps, search engines etc. real Android became less necessary. Google continued to remove more services from AOSP in the hope that it would convince companies to move to Android, but it didn’t work. Now, about 65% of all “Android” phones out there are really AOSP phones, which Google has little control over, and gets nothing from. Instead of being a gateway to Android and Google’s services, it’s become a burden.
that’s one of the reasons they converted the Chrome browser, to ChromeOS. How successful they will be moving phones to that is hard to say, as they’ve moved Chrome OS to x86 from ARM.
This is what I've said all along (when people try to compare worldwide "Android" revenues to say, The App Store). All those "forks" of Android don't benefit Android as a whole. Google isn't benefitting from a higher number of users and users aren't benefitting from gaining access to a wider range of Apps and services from all these forks and content rarely crosses over from one to the other. They are all self-contained ecosystems.
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
So, it doesn't matter to Google if Android is profitable. What matters is that they propagated their systems to hundreds of millions of users (far more than Apple has) and have been harvesting their data ever since. They could give Android away (which they did) and still make money from it.
And, for the migration to Chrome: It seems to me that Chrome is best suited to a network style architecture and, with 5G on the horizon, that will only become bigger and stronger. Those trying to cling to the old "Personal computer" paradigm will likely be left behind as people migrate completely (back) into cloud computing.
To date, cloud computing has been hindered by expensive and limited communication issues. 5G promises to open that up. And, riding the wave will be those vendors who take advantage of it. That may be Chrome more than any other OS. (And, I don't mean to rule iOS or MacOS out. Apple is obviously opening them up into cloud computing as well. We'll have to see how they do.)
Why wouldn't Windows benefit even more than Chrome? MS isn't lagging in cloud computing, and certainly has a robust developer network with very good application tools, and a large existing platform of applications.
Apple certainly has advantages in edge computing that would be a comparable advantage to cloud computing, and has a network of devices and developers. 5G is not going to be a disruption for any of the current players.
Google lost me at high priced "cloud computing" devices with Chrome OS; kind of defeats the whole purpose of Cloud Computing and actually sounds a rather conservative move for Google.
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
100% agreed. In fact, suppose that Windows Mobile (with Bing) and not Android had 80% market share. Google would be nowhere in mobile search.
In that respect Android is the most successful marketing channel on the planet, boosting the top and bottom line of the Adwords. Any company would love to have such a failure in its portfolio
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
100% agreed. In fact, suppose that Windows Mobile (with Bing) and not Android had 80% market share. Google would be nowhere in mobile search.
In that respect Android is the most successful marketing channel on the planet, boosting the top and bottom line of the Adwords. Any company would love to have such a failure in its portfolio
Yet, iPhone users continue to be the most valuable customers, hence why Google pays Apple so much for search placement in Safari. At the same time, many advertiser dollars are shifting to Amazon, and on top of that, Google is likely to see much more regulation worldwide in the near and long term than either MS or Apple.
Google collects your data, makes sausage out of it, and markets the anonymized data back to advertisers.
Privacy has value, and Apple is quite aware of that wrt it's customer base.
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
100% agreed. In fact, suppose that Windows Mobile (with Bing) and not Android had 80% market share. Google would be nowhere in mobile search.
In that respect Android is the most successful marketing channel on the planet, boosting the top and bottom line of the Adwords. Any company would love to have such a failure in its portfolio
Yet, iPhone users continue to be the most valuable customers, hence why Google pays Apple so much for search placement in Safari. At the same time, many advertiser dollars are shifting to Amazon, and on top of that, Google is likely to see much more regulation worldwide in the near and long term than either MS or Apple.
Google collects your data, makes sausage out of it, and markets the anonymized data back to advertisers.
Privacy has value, and Apple is quite aware of that wrt it's customer base.
I don’t think iPhone users specifically are the most valuable to Google, we just know how much Google pays Apple to be on iOS. It’s a subtle remark to show that Google’s most profitable product is your data while Apple considers your data most sacred and is willing to fight to protect it.
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
So, it doesn't matter to Google if Android is profitable. What matters is that they propagated their systems to hundreds of millions of users (far more than Apple has) and have been harvesting their data ever since. They could give Android away (which they did) and still make money from it.
And, for the migration to Chrome: It seems to me that Chrome is best suited to a network style architecture and, with 5G on the horizon, that will only become bigger and stronger. Those trying to cling to the old "Personal computer" paradigm will likely be left behind as people migrate completely (back) into cloud computing.
To date, cloud computing has been hindered by expensive and limited communication issues. 5G promises to open that up. And, riding the wave will be those vendors who take advantage of it. That may be Chrome more than any other OS. (And, I don't mean to rule iOS or MacOS out. Apple is obviously opening them up into cloud computing as well. We'll have to see how they do.)
Why wouldn't Windows benefit even more than Chrome? MS isn't lagging in cloud computing, and certainly has a robust developer network with very good application tools, and a large existing platform of applications.
Apple certainly has advantages in edge computing that would be a comparable advantage to cloud computing, and has a network of devices and developers. 5G is not going to be a disruption for any of the current players.
Google lost me at high priced "cloud computing" devices with Chrome OS; kind of defeats the whole purpose of Cloud Computing and actually sounds a rather conservative move for Google.
The 'personal computing' paradigm sold itself mostly or partly on being cheap. (Actually, it wasn't it just reduced costs by eliminating many non-direct services).
Cloud computing provides abilities far beyond cost savings:
For enterprise users it provides the ability for all their users to work off of one set of software and data.
For individual users it provides better data security and flexibility in software
And, for the future, it opens up the IoT -- even to self driving cars discussing who's going to go next at the 4 way stop. That'll be big feature in Canada:
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
So, it doesn't matter to Google if Android is profitable. What matters is that they propagated their systems to hundreds of millions of users (far more than Apple has) and have been harvesting their data ever since. They could give Android away (which they did) and still make money from it.
And, for the migration to Chrome: It seems to me that Chrome is best suited to a network style architecture and, with 5G on the horizon, that will only become bigger and stronger. Those trying to cling to the old "Personal computer" paradigm will likely be left behind as people migrate completely (back) into cloud computing.
To date, cloud computing has been hindered by expensive and limited communication issues. 5G promises to open that up. And, riding the wave will be those vendors who take advantage of it. That may be Chrome more than any other OS. (And, I don't mean to rule iOS or MacOS out. Apple is obviously opening them up into cloud computing as well. We'll have to see how they do.)
Why wouldn't Windows benefit even more than Chrome? MS isn't lagging in cloud computing, and certainly has a robust developer network with very good application tools, and a large existing platform of applications.
Apple certainly has advantages in edge computing that would be a comparable advantage to cloud computing, and has a network of devices and developers. 5G is not going to be a disruption for any of the current players.
Google lost me at high priced "cloud computing" devices with Chrome OS; kind of defeats the whole purpose of Cloud Computing and actually sounds a rather conservative move for Google.
The 'personal computing' paradigm sold itself mostly or partly on being cheap. (Actually, it wasn't it just reduced costs by eliminating many non-direct services).
Cloud computing provides abilities far beyond cost savings:
For enterprise users it provides the ability for all their users to work off of one set of software and data.
For individual users it provides better data security and flexibility in software
And, for the future, it opens up the IoT -- even to self driving cars discussing who's going to go next at the 4 way stop. That'll be big feature in Canada:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on cloud computing, just that Google somehow has a great advantage. As I stated, I'm not seeing it, and launching netbooks with lookalike technology to Windows laptops is pretty far from low cost Cloud clients. It appears to me that Google is hedging it's bets about the Cloud wrt hardware, or it my be that they really want to cash in.
IoT isn't going to be used for vehicle to vehicle communications; it will necessarily be a separate system. Too many failure modes possible, too much latency, with an internet connection.
It will almost certainly be a separate system for vehicle to vehicle communication, possibly using 5G technology, though only on a peer to peer, ad hoc, mesh network configuration.
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
So, it doesn't matter to Google if Android is profitable. What matters is that they propagated their systems to hundreds of millions of users (far more than Apple has) and have been harvesting their data ever since. They could give Android away (which they did) and still make money from it.
And, for the migration to Chrome: It seems to me that Chrome is best suited to a network style architecture and, with 5G on the horizon, that will only become bigger and stronger. Those trying to cling to the old "Personal computer" paradigm will likely be left behind as people migrate completely (back) into cloud computing.
To date, cloud computing has been hindered by expensive and limited communication issues. 5G promises to open that up. And, riding the wave will be those vendors who take advantage of it. That may be Chrome more than any other OS. (And, I don't mean to rule iOS or MacOS out. Apple is obviously opening them up into cloud computing as well. We'll have to see how they do.)
Why wouldn't Windows benefit even more than Chrome? MS isn't lagging in cloud computing, and certainly has a robust developer network with very good application tools, and a large existing platform of applications.
Apple certainly has advantages in edge computing that would be a comparable advantage to cloud computing, and has a network of devices and developers. 5G is not going to be a disruption for any of the current players.
Google lost me at high priced "cloud computing" devices with Chrome OS; kind of defeats the whole purpose of Cloud Computing and actually sounds a rather conservative move for Google.
The 'personal computing' paradigm sold itself mostly or partly on being cheap. (Actually, it wasn't it just reduced costs by eliminating many non-direct services).
Cloud computing provides abilities far beyond cost savings:
For enterprise users it provides the ability for all their users to work off of one set of software and data.
For individual users it provides better data security and flexibility in software
And, for the future, it opens up the IoT -- even to self driving cars discussing who's going to go next at the 4 way stop. That'll be big feature in Canada:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on cloud computing, just that Google somehow has a great advantage. As I stated, I'm not seeing it, and launching netbooks with lookalike technology to Windows laptops is pretty far from low cost Cloud clients. It appears to me that Google is hedging it's bets about the Cloud wrt hardware, or it my be that they really want to cash in.
IoT isn't going to be used for vehicle to vehicle communications; it will necessarily be a separate system. Too many failure modes possible, too much latency, with an internet connection.
It will almost certainly be a separate system for vehicle to vehicle communication, possibly using 5G technology, though only on a peer to peer, ad hoc, mesh network configuration.
Good points.
But, it isn't vanilla IoT that could be used for self driving cars communicating but by IoT supplemented with 5G that offers reliable, near instant communications. Right now it isn't feasible because the communications structure is not nearly fast enough or reliable enough. If 5G achieves its hype, it resolve that issue.
I'm actually surprised Samsung or LG hasn't figured out a way for Tizen or webOS to run apps written in Swift. If they built a compiler and made the right API/GUI changes, they could essentially offer developers an alternate platform for existing iOS apps with a relatively easy port process. Apple has already open sourced Swift, so the IP should be clear. That should give them a huge leg up on Android devices by switching to native code rather than VM. My $0.02, as ever.
thesis: "... I described how Google was distancing itself from Android"
and now wants to prove he is less wrong now. I won't dispute that Google is/has been pursuing a Chrome strategy, I will posit that that strategy has involved enough moving of goalposts that it is neither here nor there whether that strategy/those strategies are any longer relevant to the 5-year ago Chrome-component of the author's thesis.
Google’s problem is that they’ve gone back and forth on this. First they insisted that Chrome OS was just an online OS. Then they allowed some offline use, in a complex way of keeping online data on the machine. They didn’t allow extensions, because of malware, then they changed that. They started using ARM, then mostly went to x86.
nobody knows what their long term strategy is, and that might include Google itself. Remember all of the software and hardware they came out with and abandoned. Right now, I think Google is confused about all of this. I posted earlier in this thread about their Android strategy, which is a mess.
Here’s a mind experiment... if iOS were available to smartphone/tablet manufacturers under similar terms to how Android is available to them, what would the market share split for iOS versus Android look like? I’d bet most would jump to iOS, leaving Android in the ditch by the side of the road.
MR.Dilger seems to have anger problems towards Android, or anything that isnt apple products for that nature
Youre nuts. DED’s articles are always well-reasoned and explain why Apple is doing fine and others aren’t as rosy as some would have us believe. If you think that’s “anger” then, well, youre nuts.
Eh. His articles are ok, but tend to be written in an ingratiating manner, and are too insulting to other manufacturers. All of his facts aren’t always correct either.
so companies using AOSP began to develop their own services. There were browsers, maps, search engines etc. real Android became less necessary. Google continued to remove more services from AOSP in the hope that it would convince companies to move to Android, but it didn’t work. Now, about 65% of all “Android” phones out there are really AOSP phones, which Google has little control over, and gets nothing from. Instead of being a gateway to Android and Google’s services, it’s become a burden.
that’s one of the reasons they converted the Chrome browser, to ChromeOS. How successful they will be moving phones to that is hard to say, as they’ve moved Chrome OS to x86 from ARM.
This is what I've said all along (when people try to compare worldwide "Android" revenues to say, The App Store). All those "forks" of Android don't benefit Android as a whole. Google isn't benefitting from a higher number of users and users aren't benefitting from gaining access to a wider range of Apps and services from all these forks and content rarely crosses over from one to the other. They are all self-contained ecosystems.
Yeah. This all gets lumped together as Android. Which, in a sense, it is, but if you can’t used the Google Play Store directly, or anything else, is it really Android, even if it’s API compatible?
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
100% agreed. In fact, suppose that Windows Mobile (with Bing) and not Android had 80% market share. Google would be nowhere in mobile search.
In that respect Android is the most successful marketing channel on the planet, boosting the top and bottom line of the Adwords. Any company would love to have such a failure in its portfolio
And to show just how important that advertising is to Google, they are paying Apple $9 billion this year to be the default search engine, and possibly as much as $12 billion next year. When I read those numbers, I almost fell out of my chair.
Why do you do that? It's not a desirable character trait for one, and by all accounts you're actually a smart guy, perfectly capable of arguing logically instead of emotionally. Really sounds silly more than anything.
If I hurt your feelings correcting your HTC/LG editorial premise yesterday that was not my intent, so no need to lash out with assorted ad-homs in hand today. No attack on you as a person was intended nor apparent.
You don't hurt feelings, you're just a vast waste of time. You literally said nothing worth replying to. You just bark out nonsense untethered to reality.
Why does AI think it's ok that DED can attack people who give any form of negative feedback on his articles? I'm assuming any other user would be perma banned for a personal attack, but not Daniel? This site seems to struggle with it's overweight number of users who are more concerned with their Apple stock than asking questions about Apple's future direction.
Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.
Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is: Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue. (They collect your information and sell it)
100% agreed. In fact, suppose that Windows Mobile (with Bing) and not Android had 80% market share. Google would be nowhere in mobile search.
In that respect Android is the most successful marketing channel on the planet, boosting the top and bottom line of the Adwords. Any company would love to have such a failure in its portfolio
And to show just how important that advertising is to Google, they are paying Apple $9 billion this year to be the default search engine, and possibly as much as $12 billion next year. When I read those numbers, I almost fell out of my chair.
I don't think everyone understands that "as much as $9B" is a guess by an analyst, not fact. Neither Apple nor Google has ever discussed what the monetary arrangements are.
Putting the litigation issue with Oracle to the side, there's nothing preventing Google from developing a new OS from the ground up and then implementing something like what Apple did with Rosetta to allow old apps built on Java to continue to run on this new OS until they can get developers to move over to whatever new language they are using. I would assume they've been working on something like this for years now to address many of the issues DED brings up in this article. If they could do that it seems like it wouldn't take much to continue to dominate the non-Apple mobile device market.
I guess the question is would something like that still fall under the scope of the intellectual property lawsuits from Oracle?
It would, as far as running legacy ‘Java’ apps on the new platform.
Comments
Because more often than not there’s no point to wasting time tackling the piece. You have to admit though so many of these “editorials” are focused on Google. I simply don’t understand the obsession. Especially on a site that’s called Apple Insider.
So, it doesn't matter to Google if Android is profitable. What matters is that they propagated their systems to hundreds of millions of users (far more than Apple has) and have been harvesting their data ever since. They could give Android away (which they did) and still make money from it.
And, for the migration to Chrome: It seems to me that Chrome is best suited to a network style architecture and, with 5G on the horizon, that will only become bigger and stronger. Those trying to cling to the old "Personal computer" paradigm will likely be left behind as people migrate completely (back) into cloud computing.
To date, cloud computing has been hindered by expensive and limited communication issues. 5G promises to open that up. And, riding the wave will be those vendors who take advantage of it. That may be Chrome more than any other OS.
(And, I don't mean to rule iOS or MacOS out. Apple is obviously opening them up into cloud computing as well. We'll have to see how they do.)
This is what I've said all along (when people try to compare worldwide "Android" revenues to say, The App Store). All those "forks" of Android don't benefit Android as a whole. Google isn't benefitting from a higher number of users and users aren't benefitting from gaining access to a wider range of Apps and services from all these forks and content rarely crosses over from one to the other. They are all self-contained ecosystems.
Apple certainly has advantages in edge computing that would be a comparable advantage to cloud computing, and has a network of devices and developers. 5G is not going to be a disruption for any of the current players.
Google lost me at high priced "cloud computing" devices with Chrome OS; kind of defeats the whole purpose of Cloud Computing and actually sounds a rather conservative move for Google.
Google collects your data, makes sausage out of it, and markets the anonymized data back to advertisers.
Privacy has value, and Apple is quite aware of that wrt it's customer base.
IoT isn't going to be used for vehicle to vehicle communications; it will necessarily be a separate system. Too many failure modes possible, too much latency, with an internet connection.
It will almost certainly be a separate system for vehicle to vehicle communication, possibly using 5G technology, though only on a peer to peer, ad hoc, mesh network configuration.
nobody knows what their long term strategy is, and that might include Google itself. Remember all of the software and hardware they came out with and abandoned. Right now, I think Google is confused about all of this. I posted earlier in this thread about their Android strategy, which is a mess.