4 ms·

what prevents Google's competitors from removing that from the source and forking their own version of Android On one level, nothing, and my understanding (at

what prevents Google's competitors from removing that from the source and forking their own version of Android On one level, nothing, and my understanding (at the level of hearsay) is that some Chinese firms have done just that. On another level: What kind of lousy smartphone doesn't have Google? To the extent that people will use their phones to use Google, it doesn't matter if the phones officially support Google. Finally, remember that in open source software the people who don't pay you don't matter, except as a source of goodwill and publicity (or, alternatively, a source of noise and complaints; the quality of your community is important). What matters is that enough people do pay you to cover and justify the costs. how is this better than trying to make the best search engine so that every mobile device will use Google...? That is a good question. The answer three years ago was "to the extent that the number of smartphones in use worldwide is lower than the potential number of smartphones that could be in use if they were more ubiquitous and cheap, Google is losing money, so it is in their best interest to make Google-capable phones as ubiquitous and cheap as possible." And that is still the answer today. The question, though, is: In the future, once the market for Google-capable phones is fully saturated, don't Google's incentives get smaller? My guess is that, in the end [1], Google's incentives to throw resources at Android will be smaller, but of course Android will also be a middle-aged project by then, and probably substantially complete and less in need of constant engineering, and hopefully with an open-source community that can help with its maintenance. --- [1] Beautiful weasel words, these. It's pretty much guaranteed that Google won't support Android forever, just as Apple no longer supports ProDOS and Microsoft no longer supports Windows 1.0. The question is whether forever is measured in months or decades.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
kaptain 16y ago
So, I'm just trying to explore your proposed theory further. You're saying that Google is trying to get as many phones as possible to be a part of its über-search-net (ie via "Google-capable phones"), so it can better leverage its marketing/ad system (and make money). The way they want to do that is NOT to make phones, but to write software that phone manufacturers will put on their phones so that Google will get access to the user and, via the user using search, can serve up better (and more ads). Google is not charging for this software. In fact it is releasing this software so other people can change and modify it for their own use. So phone manufacturers can use this software without actually allowing Google to attain its goal of users using its search. Perhaps the way to look at it is that phone manufacturers are so lazy, that they wouldn't want to mess with all the software pieces that Google hopes to monetize (e.g. built-in search, connecting to Google apps, etc)... So Google is basically betting on laziness? Theoretically, a phone manufacturer could decide it wants to get in the search business to, or finds a partner that will give it the piece of the search pie, rip out the Googley parts and replace them with their own searchified robo-beast. That's why this model just makes me scratch my head and squint. I thought maybe, in using Android, phone manufacturers had to enter into a specific agreement that detailed the licensing and usage issues, but I couldn't find that anywhere. Looking at the iPhone, Google probably earns revenue from it just by being on the web: someone fires up MobileSafari and uses Google to search for something. Apple has shown that the smartphone market is lucrative. Other phone manufacturers would have eventually rolled their own OS to compete and Google would still have been used (eventually) via the internet. the number of smartphones in use worldwide is lower than the potential number of smartphones that could be in use if they were more ubiquitous and cheap, Google is losing money, so it is in their best interest to make Google-capable phones as ubiquitous and cheap as possible. What is a Google capable phone? Is an iPhone a Google capable phone? (I think the answer is yes). If it is, why go to all the trouble of making a mobile OS? Market forces will create smartphones that are ubiquitous and cheap, and Google will be there to offer its services. Going along with the comments above regarding Google's motivation, assumption by Google was that if they didn't create the OS, then the mobile OS's created would lock them out, thus creating the incentive to make their own OS so that they wouldn't be locked out. I find this hard to believe. I don't see Apple getting into search. Or making a serious attempt at dislodging gMail or any of the other Google services.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

kaptain 16y ago

So, I'm just trying to explore your proposed theory further. You're saying that Google is trying to get as many phones as possible to be a part of its über-search-net (ie via "Google-capable phones"), so it can better leverage its marketing/ad system (and make money). The way they want to do that is NOT to make phones, but to write software that phone manufacturers will put on their phones so that Google will get access to the user and, via the user using search, can serve up better (and more ads). Google is not charging for this software. In fact it is releasing this software so other people can change and modify it for their own use. So phone manufacturers can use this software without actually allowing Google to attain its goal of users using its search. Perhaps the way to look at it is that phone manufacturers are so lazy, that they wouldn't want to mess with all the software pieces that Google hopes to monetize (e.g. built-in search, connecting to Google apps, etc)... So Google is basically betting on laziness? Theoretically, a phone manufacturer could decide it wants to get in the search business to, or finds a partner that will give it the piece of the search pie, rip out the Googley parts and replace them with their own searchified robo-beast. That's why this model just makes me scratch my head and squint. I thought maybe, in using Android, phone manufacturers had to enter into a specific agreement that detailed the licensing and usage issues, but I couldn't find that anywhere. Looking at the iPhone, Google probably earns revenue from it just by being on the web: someone fires up MobileSafari and uses Google to search for something. Apple has shown that the smartphone market is lucrative. Other phone manufacturers would have eventually rolled their own OS to compete and Google would still have been used (eventually) via the internet. the number of smartphones in use worldwide is lower than the potential number of smartphones that could be in use if they were more ubiquitous and cheap, Google is losing money, so it is in their best interest to make Google-capable phones as ubiquitous and cheap as possible. What is a Google capable phone? Is an iPhone a Google capable phone? (I think the answer is yes). If it is, why go to all the trouble of making a mobile OS? Market forces will create smartphones that are ubiquitous and cheap, and Google will be there to offer its services. Going along with the comments above regarding Google's motivation, assumption by Google was that if they didn't create the OS, then the mobile OS's created would lock them out, thus creating the incentive to make their own OS so that they wouldn't be locked out. I find this hard to believe. I don't see Apple getting into search. Or making a serious attempt at dislodging gMail or any of the other Google services.