16 ms·

Google invested Billions into Android. Samsung tried to hedge for this by building Tizen(Bada) and realized how much needed to be invested to get an Android co

Google invested Billions into Android. Samsung tried to hedge for this by building Tizen(Bada) and realized how much needed to be invested to get an Android competitor going, so they kept the development going, but focused for their Smartwatches, as this would have to be a "if the worst happens" plan, not something that could be a profitable venture. LG has the Palm/HP borne WebOS for their TVs, i suspect with a similar idea at the back of their minds. Everyone else? They're too small to realistically try to save their smartphone businesses when the green robot becomes their enemy. Google bought this platform with every dollar invested over more than a decade, they didn't do this only so that Apple had a competitor, but so that THEY had control over mobile eyeballs.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
This is different from Korean manufacturers this time. This is China caught in a national security issue. - China has a huge domestic market and it may be sufficient in itself for a profitable venture - About half of Android phones are manufactured by Chinese brands. - China has deep pockets and are willing to play the long game. - They have no choice. Trump's used the nuclear option, which may well work in the short term but in the long term this has shown China and others that they have to get rid of their reliance on US tech and companies as a matter of national security. I think Trump's move has set a ball rolling and that in 10 years we'll see the results of that... And that won't be a pretty picture for the US.
- fspeech 7y ago
  I think Google can compete on its own merit without having to be viewed as a monopolist, so I disagree that it won't be pretty for the US. Google will do fine on a more level playing field.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    The problem is not Google per se, but the power the US government yields through Google and tech companies in general. If 50% of Android phones are by Chinese brands then once an alternative exists they will have a big incentive in dropping Android. The end result can only be a massive market share loss for Google. The same goes for other tech companies like Qualcomm, ARM (not US but in same boat). Anything that can be weaponised. This is geopolitics and a global strategic issue. Google is just caught in it.
  - DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
    I think the post you replied to may not be referring to Google, but to all the other companies that will have a choice to build for a future Asian giant or US giant (Google). Knowing that they can be cut off by US Gov, may push investment east.
- oblio 7y ago
  I don't get why you're being downvoted. China just needs a Deng Xiaoping moment for software. If they try top-down control, even with all the Chinese brands behind it, it will still founder behind Android. But if they relinquish some control for the sake of getting a competitive OS where they can't be cut off, what you're saying is true. I do see them capable making an OS, technically, I'm more worried about their worldwide soft skills/soft power. Which I'm guessing they'd also want to improve, so you never know.
  - lightedman 7y ago
    "I don't get why you're being downvoted." Because this is HN and HN has a horrible moderation system that makes no sense and pales in comparison to the BBS of olde.
- Silhouette 7y ago
  Trump's used the nuclear option, which may well work in the short term but in the long term this has shown China and others that they have to get rid of their reliance on US tech and companies as a matter of national security. Indeed. Trump's heavy-handed approach in recent weeks seems likely to have far-reaching implications, and presumably the results won't be favourable for Western businesses hoping to expand more into fast-growing Asian markets in the years ahead. He's shown that any business with strong connections to the US can't be relied upon to be an economically rational trading partner, because the US is now demonstrably willing to conflate national security issues with trade policy. That policy is also putting US allies in awkward positions. Here in the UK, we are faced with questionable demands from a long-time ally (the US) and thinly veiled threats from a big investor (China) if we comply with those demands. Presumably other allies such as Australia feel similar opposing pressures. The only rational long-term strategy I can see for nations in this position is to be clear that they will always make their own strategic decisions on security matters and which global suppliers to use for national infrastructure projects (and then to actually do so, throwing a proverbial elbow at the US if necessary). At least that way you maintain some credibility with future governments around the world as a reasonable partner. In the meantime, it seems that the current hostile stance toward China from the Trump administration in the US is hurting the global economy, and ironically it also seems like US consumers are the ones ultimately paying most of the cost of those trade barriers.
  - HillaryBriss 7y ago
    > ironically it also seems like US consumers are the ones ultimately paying most of the cost of those trade barriers Consumers will pay more but I'm not as sure about the irony. Couldn't it be that the intent is to reduce US consumption of Chinese imported goods? Couldn't the policy's intent simply be to shift the economy ever so slightly away from consumption and toward production?
    - Silhouette 7y ago
      Couldn't the policy's intent simply be to shift the economy ever so slightly away from consumption and toward production? It certainly could be, but I think how credible that is depends on the goods affected. If they are essentials and there is competition from elsewhere, the barriers make China less competitive, and US customers will presumably go for the best deal to minimise their losses. If they are non-essentials, the barriers also make them less attractive, and again China loses out. But if they are essentials and China is the only game in town, import tariffs look a lot like a tax on the US market.
- dageshi 7y ago
  This was always China's desire, to basically build home grown tech's that could replace the ones they were using from the west. Unless the Chinese government mandates use of a single os (no android) in the domestic market then it won't work, if they do then they still don't have a viable os for the rest of the world because the rest of the world wants google, facebook and other apps which are banned in china. Facebook e.t.c. aren't going to make apps for a primarily domestic only phone where they are legally banned.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    Chinese brands have huge market share in many countries outside China (e.g. close to 50% in India). Facebook and others will make apps for them...
    - geomark 7y ago
      Chinese brands also have about 50% of the market in Thailand, followed by Samsung and then Apple. Not as big as India, but annual sales of around 20 million units is still a decent chunk of change.
  - AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
    China is shifting its factories to Africa, eventually growing a market there. It won't matter what apps irrelevant markets like North America or Europe want while the rest is using Chinese services.
    - PuffinBlue 7y ago
      That's interesting. Do you have any more info on where they are putting those factories?
      - Symmetry 7y ago
        Everywhere from Nigeria to Lesotho basically. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35288650-the-next-factory-of-the-world https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35288650-the-next-factor...
- Tsubasachan 7y ago
  Is it about security? Because Trump is saying he wants to have a deal with Huawei now... Or is it about the trade deficit? In which case Korean and Japanese manufacturers are not safe from prosecution.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    It is certainly a national security issue for China (and the world) to see that the US Government is able to 'flip the switch' on so many critical tech so easily.
    - lmm 7y ago
      Sure. But for South Korea and Japan it's less so; those nations already take a national security posture that leaves them exposed if the US were to turn against them.
      - max_wen 7y ago
        South Korea and Japan have been allies of the US for quite a long time and have zero reason to think that would ever change.
        lmm 7y ago
        Exactly - so "the US could flip a switch and sabotage our technology" may not be a particular concern for them.
        axway 7y ago
        There are lots of reason for a company or a country to have alternative independent supply chain (hardware or software or tech or anything). Japan has to sign the Plaza Accord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord#Effects when it positioned to challenge US economy. It is attributed as the main reason to their Lost Decades. You bet that Japanese forgot about this, and Korean and Chinese do not know this. What US gov initially wanted probably is something like Plaza Accord with Chinese, but they have the size to resist, so Trump showed the nuclear option. Like some commenters pointed out here, it may work in short term, but it will hurt US companies in long term.
baybal2 7y ago
> Google bought this platform with every dollar invested over more than a decade, they didn't do this only so that Apple had a competitor, but so that THEY had control over mobile eyeballs. Google's biggest trick was developers. They leveraged the decaying state of Java, and it being the default CS language in a lot of places. They simple showed a more attractive opportunity to tenths of thousands of Java devs stuck in ungainful employment in "enterprise software" sector. Nobody else in the world managed to get so much of developer mindshare overnight ever. Developers, developers, developers, developers... Balmer got the idea, but did not know how to get it. Jobs realised it too late, and spent too much effort toying with Internet only apps in time when most of USA was on class 2 GPRS. Andy Rubin, well I'd say, got the right solution almost by accident, and only realised its value later in Android's life.
- pizza 7y ago
  Makes me think whoever comes up with a mainstreamed way to do cross-platform mobile apps in Python will easily capture a large share of recent college grads, too, then.
  - sametmax 7y ago
    Jolla did and failed.
    - baybal2 7y ago
      Well, Jolla was a meme company. The best shot a normal Linux had on mobile was during N9 era, and late Meegos. After that things went sour: - GTK+/glib dev community began to wither simply because of older members retiring, and no new blood - DRM flamewar with record labels - Android diverted a great amount of community resources - Monopolisation of smartphone SoC market. - Elop...
      - ahartmetz 7y ago
        Not Elop really. The Nokia board had already decided to sell to MSFT and brought in Elop to do it. If the N9 hadn't been delayed by years, things could have gone very differently. In retrospect, the biggest surprise was that the years delayed N9 actually turned out to be very good. Extremely delayed products are more often bad than good when they are finally released.
harryf 7y ago
It’s possible that Google cutting off Huawei will actually backfire, because it makes having a viable alternative to Android a MUST HAVE instead of just NICE TO HAVE. Perhaps it’s possible to resurrect Blackberry 10 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_10 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_10 ) for example, which seemed to be an impressive piece of engineering that got trampled by Blackberrys failing business. I played with a demo once that could run Android apps and was amazing at multi-tasking thanks to its microkernel architecture. Plus would be governed by Canadian export laws I guess. Perhaps I’m just daydreaming though. Either way think it’s going to lead to more mobile OS competition again, which is a good thing
- rickdeckard 7y ago
  BB10 is based on QNX platform, I strongly doubt that QNX is independent from any US assets, patents, licenses, so moving from Android to BB10 is just "more of the same"
  - geocar 7y ago
    Blackberry is a Canadian company. Harman International (the former owner of QNX) was a subsidiary of a South Korean company. I don't understand what you mean about "US assets, patents, licenses" -- what are you thinking about here?
  - bregma 7y ago
    QNX developer here. I don't think what you're saying is true. QNX has patents registered in the USA, and in other countries, but that's hardly relevant. It's a Canadian company owned by a Canadian corporation. BB10, on the other hand, is dead and buried. It would be easier to port something like UBPort's Ubuntu Touch to QNX as an alternative to Android.
    - seabrookmx 7y ago
      What's QNX used for nowadays? Car infotainment systems? Anything else standout?
snaky 7y ago
> A made-in-Europe non-Google-led OS might gain more ground among risk averse governments and enterprises — as a sensible hedge against Trump-fueled global uncertainty. > “Sailfish OS, as a non-American, open-source based, secure mobile OS platform, is naturally an interesting option for different players — currently the interest is stronger among corporate and governmental customers and partners, as our product offering is clearly focused on this segment,” says Jolla co-founder and CEO Sami Pienimäki . > “Overall, there definitely has been increased interest towards Sailfish OS as a mobile OS platform in different parts of the world, partly triggered by the on-going political activity in many locations. We have also had clearly more discussions with e.g. Chinese device manufacturers, and Jolla has also recently started new corporate and governmental customer projects in Europe.” https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/20/trumps-huawei-ban-also-causing-tech-shocks-in-europe/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/20/trumps-huawei-ban-also-cau...
_Understated_ 7y ago
I wonder at what point it makes sense for Samsung, HP, Huawei, LG etc. to get together to make another OS... they sell a lot of phones across the globe. Hell, even include Microsoft in there too.
- max_wen 7y ago
  why would Samsung or LG want to partner with Huawei?
  - bonestamp2 7y ago
    Why not? Microsoft and Google partner on TypeScript. Sony and Microsoft are partnering in online gaming. Many of the automakers have partnerships with each other for supplying engines and/or transmissions... sometimes they even build complete vehicles for both manufacturers: Chrysler/VW, BMW/Toyota, GM/Toyota, Chrysler/Mazda. Sometimes there are good reasons to work with your competitors.
- mcphage 7y ago
  If those companies were interested in investing the billions required for such a venture, they wouldn’t have gotten into this situation in the first place.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    I don't think it's that. After network effects kick in, the chances for creating a viable OS are extremely slim. They could have invested three times what Google has invested in Android and still fail.
    - jimclegg 7y ago
      Almost 3 billion people will be online in India and China alone, and they aren't strongly interested in sharing domestic private data with foreign entities (Facebook, Google, Apple). Creating another OS seems like an inevitability.
- 7y ago
eloisant 7y ago
Google kinda pulled a "bait-and-switch" with Android. When they released it, it was pretty much 100% Open Source, then they moved more and more elements to their proprietary GApps suite, included the Play Services required to run even many 3rd party apps. At this point Android is barely more Open Source than iOS and its Mach kernel, but the difference is that Google got its market share by selling to manufacturers the fact that they're independant because it's Open Source.
- kozhevnikov 7y ago
  Embrace, extend, and extinguish.
- doodpants 7y ago
  > Google kinda pulled a "bait-and-switch" with Android. > When they released it, it was pretty much 100% Open Source, then they moved more and more elements to their proprietary GApps suite, included the Play Services required to run even many 3rd party apps. I thought the reason they did this was because third party phone makers were controlling when/whether users could update the OS on their device. So users were often several Android releases behind, even on a phone that was only a year old. By moving a lot of the core functionality into apps, users could update these apps and have access to newer features even on older OS versions. Though, I guess that doesn't explain why the apps themselves aren't open source.
- Caligatio 7y ago
  Are you aware of the microG project? It is entirely possible to run Android apps without Play Services. Is it perfect? Far from it but it's disingenuous to say "Android is barely more Open Source than iOS". If you want to add in the Play Store into the mix, things change slightly.
- Roritharr 7y ago
  This is not what happened. From 2007-2009 HW manufacturers had no answer to the iPhones Software. Sure you could build a phone on top of Windows Mobile, Sonys Xperia X1 is my favorite entry from this time period, but you had no consolidated Software Vision for a mobile OS. Customers were craving phones that were as accessible as iPhones were, with a good example being the datepickers in mobile safari. You couldn't fix this with a Custom Windows Mobile Homescreen. Neither Nokia, nor anyone else in Mobile Phones at the time had thought about the software part as much as about the hardware. Even Andy Rubin got smacked in the face by the iPhone Keynote, but his advantage was the lack of organizational and technological debt that anyone else watching this keynote in a position to act plagued. Apple was highly regarded inside Google when it comes to design decisions and is so until this very day (Why again does my Pixel 2 lack an 3.5mm socket?) so for Rubin simply adopting the design and ui vision while following different engineering principles was a path that had less hurdles for him than for everyone else in the position to do something about it in 2007. That's why Android is where it is, not because Google decided to go the OpenSource way with it. Customers decided this was the only viable alternative, they brought money to the platform and developers followed. Sure it was a lot fun stuff happening on the platform aswell that gave it the positive look, but this didn't affect the relevant apps to stay iOS only until they couldn't afford to anymore, simple market share decided that. Device Manufacturers were desperate for anything, if they had to pay license fees for closed source software or not wouldn't have mattered if there had been a viable answer to iOS in 2007.
derefr 7y ago
Isn’t KaiOS [nee FirefoxOS] open-source in a way where any of these companies could just... use it? (In the same way they can “just use” Android now?) Why do they need to make their own?
roboys 7y ago
I'm glad that nails are starting to be placed in Google Play's coffin. As it stands, Android's whole notification system (3rd party apps included) relies almost completely on communicating with Google servers. Seems like a bad design if privacy is a concern.
- bonestamp2 7y ago
  > Seems like a bad design if privacy is a concern. True, although having one endpoint does have some advantages for battery life and api consistency.
JohnFen 7y ago
> so that THEY had control over mobile eyeballs. I am getting ready to leave the commercial smartphone world entirely, in large part to escape Android. I want to escape Android primarily (but not only) because of the very thing you said here. Google is making it harder and harder to use Android devices in a secure way, and for me, the cost/benefit of using it became too high a while back.
sureaboutthis 7y ago
iow, Google did what any company would do in the competitive marketplace--as they should.
NikkiA 7y ago
Is not most of android open-source enough to fork? Sure you'd lose all the google integration and the binary blobs of the play store, but if you were 'going alone' you'd not care that much about the play store anyway as you'd diverge from android prime over time.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago

This is different from Korean manufacturers this time. This is China caught in a national security issue. - China has a huge domestic market and it may be sufficient in itself for a profitable venture - About half of Android phones are manufactured by Chinese brands. - China has deep pockets and are willing to play the long game. - They have no choice. Trump's used the nuclear option, which may well work in the short term but in the long term this has shown China and others that they have to get rid of their reliance on US tech and companies as a matter of national security. I think Trump's move has set a ball rolling and that in 10 years we'll see the results of that... And that won't be a pretty picture for the US.

fspeech 7y ago
I think Google can compete on its own merit without having to be viewed as a monopolist, so I disagree that it won't be pretty for the US. Google will do fine on a more level playing field.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  The problem is not Google per se, but the power the US government yields through Google and tech companies in general. If 50% of Android phones are by Chinese brands then once an alternative exists they will have a big incentive in dropping Android. The end result can only be a massive market share loss for Google. The same goes for other tech companies like Qualcomm, ARM (not US but in same boat). Anything that can be weaponised. This is geopolitics and a global strategic issue. Google is just caught in it.
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
  I think the post you replied to may not be referring to Google, but to all the other companies that will have a choice to build for a future Asian giant or US giant (Google). Knowing that they can be cut off by US Gov, may push investment east.
oblio 7y ago
I don't get why you're being downvoted. China just needs a Deng Xiaoping moment for software. If they try top-down control, even with all the Chinese brands behind it, it will still founder behind Android. But if they relinquish some control for the sake of getting a competitive OS where they can't be cut off, what you're saying is true. I do see them capable making an OS, technically, I'm more worried about their worldwide soft skills/soft power. Which I'm guessing they'd also want to improve, so you never know.
- lightedman 7y ago
  "I don't get why you're being downvoted." Because this is HN and HN has a horrible moderation system that makes no sense and pales in comparison to the BBS of olde.
Silhouette 7y ago
Trump's used the nuclear option, which may well work in the short term but in the long term this has shown China and others that they have to get rid of their reliance on US tech and companies as a matter of national security. Indeed. Trump's heavy-handed approach in recent weeks seems likely to have far-reaching implications, and presumably the results won't be favourable for Western businesses hoping to expand more into fast-growing Asian markets in the years ahead. He's shown that any business with strong connections to the US can't be relied upon to be an economically rational trading partner, because the US is now demonstrably willing to conflate national security issues with trade policy. That policy is also putting US allies in awkward positions. Here in the UK, we are faced with questionable demands from a long-time ally (the US) and thinly veiled threats from a big investor (China) if we comply with those demands. Presumably other allies such as Australia feel similar opposing pressures. The only rational long-term strategy I can see for nations in this position is to be clear that they will always make their own strategic decisions on security matters and which global suppliers to use for national infrastructure projects (and then to actually do so, throwing a proverbial elbow at the US if necessary). At least that way you maintain some credibility with future governments around the world as a reasonable partner. In the meantime, it seems that the current hostile stance toward China from the Trump administration in the US is hurting the global economy, and ironically it also seems like US consumers are the ones ultimately paying most of the cost of those trade barriers.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  > ironically it also seems like US consumers are the ones ultimately paying most of the cost of those trade barriers Consumers will pay more but I'm not as sure about the irony. Couldn't it be that the intent is to reduce US consumption of Chinese imported goods? Couldn't the policy's intent simply be to shift the economy ever so slightly away from consumption and toward production?
  - Silhouette 7y ago
    Couldn't the policy's intent simply be to shift the economy ever so slightly away from consumption and toward production? It certainly could be, but I think how credible that is depends on the goods affected. If they are essentials and there is competition from elsewhere, the barriers make China less competitive, and US customers will presumably go for the best deal to minimise their losses. If they are non-essentials, the barriers also make them less attractive, and again China loses out. But if they are essentials and China is the only game in town, import tariffs look a lot like a tax on the US market.
dageshi 7y ago
This was always China's desire, to basically build home grown tech's that could replace the ones they were using from the west. Unless the Chinese government mandates use of a single os (no android) in the domestic market then it won't work, if they do then they still don't have a viable os for the rest of the world because the rest of the world wants google, facebook and other apps which are banned in china. Facebook e.t.c. aren't going to make apps for a primarily domestic only phone where they are legally banned.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  Chinese brands have huge market share in many countries outside China (e.g. close to 50% in India). Facebook and others will make apps for them...
  - geomark 7y ago
    Chinese brands also have about 50% of the market in Thailand, followed by Samsung and then Apple. Not as big as India, but annual sales of around 20 million units is still a decent chunk of change.
- AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
  China is shifting its factories to Africa, eventually growing a market there. It won't matter what apps irrelevant markets like North America or Europe want while the rest is using Chinese services.
  - PuffinBlue 7y ago
    That's interesting. Do you have any more info on where they are putting those factories?
    - Symmetry 7y ago
      Everywhere from Nigeria to Lesotho basically. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35288650-the-next-factory-of-the-world https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35288650-the-next-factor...
Tsubasachan 7y ago
Is it about security? Because Trump is saying he wants to have a deal with Huawei now... Or is it about the trade deficit? In which case Korean and Japanese manufacturers are not safe from prosecution.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  It is certainly a national security issue for China (and the world) to see that the US Government is able to 'flip the switch' on so many critical tech so easily.
  - lmm 7y ago
    Sure. But for South Korea and Japan it's less so; those nations already take a national security posture that leaves them exposed if the US were to turn against them.
    - max_wen 7y ago
      South Korea and Japan have been allies of the US for quite a long time and have zero reason to think that would ever change.
      - lmm 7y ago
        Exactly - so "the US could flip a switch and sabotage our technology" may not be a particular concern for them.
      - axway 7y ago
        There are lots of reason for a company or a country to have alternative independent supply chain (hardware or software or tech or anything). Japan has to sign the Plaza Accord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord#Effects when it positioned to challenge US economy. It is attributed as the main reason to their Lost Decades. You bet that Japanese forgot about this, and Korean and Chinese do not know this. What US gov initially wanted probably is something like Plaza Accord with Chinese, but they have the size to resist, so Trump showed the nuclear option. Like some commenters pointed out here, it may work in short term, but it will hurt US companies in long term.

baybal2 7y ago

> Google bought this platform with every dollar invested over more than a decade, they didn't do this only so that Apple had a competitor, but so that THEY had control over mobile eyeballs. Google's biggest trick was developers. They leveraged the decaying state of Java, and it being the default CS language in a lot of places. They simple showed a more attractive opportunity to tenths of thousands of Java devs stuck in ungainful employment in "enterprise software" sector. Nobody else in the world managed to get so much of developer mindshare overnight ever. Developers, developers, developers, developers... Balmer got the idea, but did not know how to get it. Jobs realised it too late, and spent too much effort toying with Internet only apps in time when most of USA was on class 2 GPRS. Andy Rubin, well I'd say, got the right solution almost by accident, and only realised its value later in Android's life.

pizza 7y ago
Makes me think whoever comes up with a mainstreamed way to do cross-platform mobile apps in Python will easily capture a large share of recent college grads, too, then.
- sametmax 7y ago
  Jolla did and failed.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    Well, Jolla was a meme company. The best shot a normal Linux had on mobile was during N9 era, and late Meegos. After that things went sour: - GTK+/glib dev community began to wither simply because of older members retiring, and no new blood - DRM flamewar with record labels - Android diverted a great amount of community resources - Monopolisation of smartphone SoC market. - Elop...
    - ahartmetz 7y ago
      Not Elop really. The Nokia board had already decided to sell to MSFT and brought in Elop to do it. If the N9 hadn't been delayed by years, things could have gone very differently. In retrospect, the biggest surprise was that the years delayed N9 actually turned out to be very good. Extremely delayed products are more often bad than good when they are finally released.

harryf 7y ago

It’s possible that Google cutting off Huawei will actually backfire, because it makes having a viable alternative to Android a MUST HAVE instead of just NICE TO HAVE. Perhaps it’s possible to resurrect Blackberry 10 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_10 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_10 ) for example, which seemed to be an impressive piece of engineering that got trampled by Blackberrys failing business. I played with a demo once that could run Android apps and was amazing at multi-tasking thanks to its microkernel architecture. Plus would be governed by Canadian export laws I guess. Perhaps I’m just daydreaming though. Either way think it’s going to lead to more mobile OS competition again, which is a good thing

rickdeckard 7y ago
BB10 is based on QNX platform, I strongly doubt that QNX is independent from any US assets, patents, licenses, so moving from Android to BB10 is just "more of the same"
- geocar 7y ago
  Blackberry is a Canadian company. Harman International (the former owner of QNX) was a subsidiary of a South Korean company. I don't understand what you mean about "US assets, patents, licenses" -- what are you thinking about here?
- bregma 7y ago
  QNX developer here. I don't think what you're saying is true. QNX has patents registered in the USA, and in other countries, but that's hardly relevant. It's a Canadian company owned by a Canadian corporation. BB10, on the other hand, is dead and buried. It would be easier to port something like UBPort's Ubuntu Touch to QNX as an alternative to Android.
  - seabrookmx 7y ago
    What's QNX used for nowadays? Car infotainment systems? Anything else standout?

snaky 7y ago

> A made-in-Europe non-Google-led OS might gain more ground among risk averse governments and enterprises — as a sensible hedge against Trump-fueled global uncertainty. > “Sailfish OS, as a non-American, open-source based, secure mobile OS platform, is naturally an interesting option for different players — currently the interest is stronger among corporate and governmental customers and partners, as our product offering is clearly focused on this segment,” says Jolla co-founder and CEO Sami Pienimäki . > “Overall, there definitely has been increased interest towards Sailfish OS as a mobile OS platform in different parts of the world, partly triggered by the on-going political activity in many locations. We have also had clearly more discussions with e.g. Chinese device manufacturers, and Jolla has also recently started new corporate and governmental customer projects in Europe.” https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/20/trumps-huawei-ban-also-causing-tech-shocks-in-europe/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/20/trumps-huawei-ban-also-cau...

_Understated_ 7y ago

I wonder at what point it makes sense for Samsung, HP, Huawei, LG etc. to get together to make another OS... they sell a lot of phones across the globe. Hell, even include Microsoft in there too.

max_wen 7y ago
why would Samsung or LG want to partner with Huawei?
- bonestamp2 7y ago
  Why not? Microsoft and Google partner on TypeScript. Sony and Microsoft are partnering in online gaming. Many of the automakers have partnerships with each other for supplying engines and/or transmissions... sometimes they even build complete vehicles for both manufacturers: Chrysler/VW, BMW/Toyota, GM/Toyota, Chrysler/Mazda. Sometimes there are good reasons to work with your competitors.
mcphage 7y ago
If those companies were interested in investing the billions required for such a venture, they wouldn’t have gotten into this situation in the first place.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  I don't think it's that. After network effects kick in, the chances for creating a viable OS are extremely slim. They could have invested three times what Google has invested in Android and still fail.
  - jimclegg 7y ago
    Almost 3 billion people will be online in India and China alone, and they aren't strongly interested in sharing domestic private data with foreign entities (Facebook, Google, Apple). Creating another OS seems like an inevitability.
7y ago

eloisant 7y ago

Google kinda pulled a "bait-and-switch" with Android. When they released it, it was pretty much 100% Open Source, then they moved more and more elements to their proprietary GApps suite, included the Play Services required to run even many 3rd party apps. At this point Android is barely more Open Source than iOS and its Mach kernel, but the difference is that Google got its market share by selling to manufacturers the fact that they're independant because it's Open Source.

kozhevnikov 7y ago
Embrace, extend, and extinguish.
doodpants 7y ago
> Google kinda pulled a "bait-and-switch" with Android. > When they released it, it was pretty much 100% Open Source, then they moved more and more elements to their proprietary GApps suite, included the Play Services required to run even many 3rd party apps. I thought the reason they did this was because third party phone makers were controlling when/whether users could update the OS on their device. So users were often several Android releases behind, even on a phone that was only a year old. By moving a lot of the core functionality into apps, users could update these apps and have access to newer features even on older OS versions. Though, I guess that doesn't explain why the apps themselves aren't open source.
Caligatio 7y ago
Are you aware of the microG project? It is entirely possible to run Android apps without Play Services. Is it perfect? Far from it but it's disingenuous to say "Android is barely more Open Source than iOS". If you want to add in the Play Store into the mix, things change slightly.
Roritharr 7y ago
This is not what happened. From 2007-2009 HW manufacturers had no answer to the iPhones Software. Sure you could build a phone on top of Windows Mobile, Sonys Xperia X1 is my favorite entry from this time period, but you had no consolidated Software Vision for a mobile OS. Customers were craving phones that were as accessible as iPhones were, with a good example being the datepickers in mobile safari. You couldn't fix this with a Custom Windows Mobile Homescreen. Neither Nokia, nor anyone else in Mobile Phones at the time had thought about the software part as much as about the hardware. Even Andy Rubin got smacked in the face by the iPhone Keynote, but his advantage was the lack of organizational and technological debt that anyone else watching this keynote in a position to act plagued. Apple was highly regarded inside Google when it comes to design decisions and is so until this very day (Why again does my Pixel 2 lack an 3.5mm socket?) so for Rubin simply adopting the design and ui vision while following different engineering principles was a path that had less hurdles for him than for everyone else in the position to do something about it in 2007. That's why Android is where it is, not because Google decided to go the OpenSource way with it. Customers decided this was the only viable alternative, they brought money to the platform and developers followed. Sure it was a lot fun stuff happening on the platform aswell that gave it the positive look, but this didn't affect the relevant apps to stay iOS only until they couldn't afford to anymore, simple market share decided that. Device Manufacturers were desperate for anything, if they had to pay license fees for closed source software or not wouldn't have mattered if there had been a viable answer to iOS in 2007.

derefr 7y ago

Isn’t KaiOS [nee FirefoxOS] open-source in a way where any of these companies could just... use it? (In the same way they can “just use” Android now?) Why do they need to make their own?

roboys 7y ago

I'm glad that nails are starting to be placed in Google Play's coffin. As it stands, Android's whole notification system (3rd party apps included) relies almost completely on communicating with Google servers. Seems like a bad design if privacy is a concern.

bonestamp2 7y ago
> Seems like a bad design if privacy is a concern. True, although having one endpoint does have some advantages for battery life and api consistency.

JohnFen 7y ago

> so that THEY had control over mobile eyeballs. I am getting ready to leave the commercial smartphone world entirely, in large part to escape Android. I want to escape Android primarily (but not only) because of the very thing you said here. Google is making it harder and harder to use Android devices in a secure way, and for me, the cost/benefit of using it became too high a while back.

sureaboutthis 7y ago

iow, Google did what any company would do in the competitive marketplace--as they should.

NikkiA 7y ago

Is not most of android open-source enough to fork? Sure you'd lose all the google integration and the binary blobs of the play store, but if you were 'going alone' you'd not care that much about the play store anyway as you'd diverge from android prime over time.