3 ms·

Here's the logic, huggy: Android is fragmented across multiple axis (UI, Device form factor, OS/API, Marketplace, Services). Nook is based on Android. It is n

by cek 14y ago

Here's the logic, huggy: Android is fragmented across multiple axis (UI, Device form factor, OS/API, Marketplace, Services). Nook is based on Android. It is not, today, a fork of Android as the Kindel Fire is, but it is also not the latest. B&N, so far has only diverged in a few places (mostly UI). With a $300M lease on life, B&N can borrow from the Amazon playbook (which appears to be working for Amazon) and further control their destiny by investing in * a significantly better UI for Nook than ICS provides today. * Device differentiation that is off the beaten path (apps already need to test screen size / cameras etc...). * OS/APIs (less likely in B&N's case than others, but still possible). * Marketplace - This is where B&N will likely follow AMZN's lead... Use some of that $300M to build their own app/book/music/video marketplace that competes with Google Play (and AMZN). I scratched my head as to why MS made this investment. My 21 years there tell me that whenever an investment is non-obvious there's likely either some deep paranoia or a chance to disrupt a competitor. I think there's some of both here. There is no doubt (in Microsoft's eyes) that part of the GOOG strategy with Android was to disrupt Windows (and it has been very successful). I have no doubt that 'getting even', just a little bit, was part of this decision.

huggyface 14y ago
I have no doubt that 'getting even', just a little bit, was part of this decision. You entire logical process is flawed because it rests on the argument that this device is competitive with "official" Android because it runs a heavily derived, gimped, old version of Android. That is terrible illogical, contrary to every historical example. In fact all it does is guarantee that they're always two steps behind, when they could as easily choose Windows 8, WebOS, or any alternative that will allow them to march ahead at their own discretion. The Nook, like the Kindle Fire, competes on price and on media availability. The Kindle Fire takes some advantage of the Android app ecosystem (though again they're in the dangerous position of trailing Google), while the Nook takes almost none. Both of them compete with iPads and upcoming Windows 8 tablets as much if not more than with Android tablets. There is nothing strategic in this.

by cek 14y ago

huggyface 14y ago

I have no doubt that 'getting even', just a little bit, was part of this decision. You entire logical process is flawed because it rests on the argument that this device is competitive with "official" Android because it runs a heavily derived, gimped, old version of Android. That is terrible illogical, contrary to every historical example. In fact all it does is guarantee that they're always two steps behind, when they could as easily choose Windows 8, WebOS, or any alternative that will allow them to march ahead at their own discretion. The Nook, like the Kindle Fire, competes on price and on media availability. The Kindle Fire takes some advantage of the Android app ecosystem (though again they're in the dangerous position of trailing Google), while the Nook takes almost none. Both of them compete with iPads and upcoming Windows 8 tablets as much if not more than with Android tablets. There is nothing strategic in this.