4 ms·

A) But they didnt have to compete with Google so they have a new competitor B) There is a lot at stake here, a good solution would be to donate android to an i

A) But they didnt have to compete with Google so they have a new competitor B) There is a lot at stake here, a good solution would be to donate android to an independent "Android foundation" D) Still, google's phones will always be one step ahead with technologies that are hard to compete, like voice recognition, navigation and search. In any case this could be a phenomenal move, and may even be a big boost for android tablets and other embedded devices, an unexploited area. It sounds like Google would like to try android on anything from cars, tvs and washing machines, but 3rd partners were unwilling to take the risk. Now they have their own hardware division.

bad_user 15y ago
B) a foundation would be either a total facade for the current status quo (i.e. Google controlling everything Android), like the JCP is, or would be a really bad idea -- after all, if these phone makers could have created a good smartphone platform, they wouldn't have needed Android in the first place D) not necessarily; currently Google's partners have access to the latest Android developments before the public release. And I don't think stuff like voice recognition, navigation and search requires special hardware, otherwise all the software and apps do get released. I actually think that Android phone-makers will be happy, because it is not in Google's interests to fuck up the Android ecosystem just so they can sell their own phones. They are not and never will be like Apple, they will never enjoy the huge profit margins that Apple does -- it is in their best interests however for Google's apps to be the default on all mobiles.