4 ms·
Android's is that its open. So there would not be only one company pumping in resources into it but many small developers and even other big firms who want to u
by rick_2047 17y ago
Android's is that its open. So there would not be only one company pumping in resources into it but many small developers and even other big firms who want to use it as a profitable platform. In this Android gains resources,mostly free marketing and probably some great breakthroughs.
- potatolicious 17y agoThe same argument has been made about Linux in the past - and it has panned out; many individuals and companies pour resources into Linux development (Redhat, IBM, Oracle, etc), but yet it is still not a ubiquitous desktop OS. I've given up on the belief that anything will succeed merely on the notion of being open.
- rick_2047 17y agoAndroid has what linux lacked -- Marketing. Linux didn't have the name of a company like Google associated with it, a name many of us trust (or at least know). Linux didn't succeed because there was no PR,no marketing and it was hard to set up. Android will not have to be setup. Also there is the case of compatibilities. Although linux was developed by 1991 but it didn't enter the mainstream market then.Android, on the other hand,is not entering a market which is already dominated by some other incompatible format. So standards can be built and dealt with.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- gaius 17y ago"Linux did not succeed on the desktop because Linux as a desktop OS did not have corporate backing behind it" Not true. I cite Sun's OpenOffice effort as one example. Cast your mind back further and there was Caldera Network Desktop backed by Novell (who were a powerful corporation back then). Even today there's Umbuntu. So we can clearly see that many people have tried to make Linux successful on the desktop, and all have failed.