3 ms·

Let's prioritize... Help out a large OEM with some level of gravitas and reliability or 10's to 100's of bargain-bin-targeting mom & pop shops that are unwillin

by pistle 13y ago

Let's prioritize... Help out a large OEM with some level of gravitas and reliability or 10's to 100's of bargain-bin-targeting mom & pop shops that are unwilling to put their balls on the line to get up to speed on making globally-commercial products. Then you have the morass of cheap China tainting your platform. Google loves Samsung because they understand, slightly, how to balance silly, shiny shit with passable hardware. Imagine the backlash when millions of consumers think "terrible piece of crap" when someone says, "Google-compliant, Android-based device." AND THEN those same OEM's will come back and tar Google (again) for their failures. I wouldn't rush out to prop up everybody with a cousin that knows a bad batch parts fence in Shenzen. Let the creme rise to the top first.

d2dadvisory 13y ago
So I wrote the original post, and I'm always a bit afraid to wade into the comments, but I wanted to respond to this one. Your point is that Google is prioritizing correctly. That they are just going after the big OEMs first and then the guys I'm talking about are too small to bother with. About right? I didn't hammer the point in this post, because I've made it a few other places, but all of these OEMs collectively are bigger than any other single OEM. Collectively, this group produces between one half and two thirds of the world's phones. Most are very small, but many are now huge. Google seems to be focussing on just one or two. I think with a small amount of effort they could tap into the whole audience. It wouldn't require building a huge support structure. And the numbers are huge.
- pistle 13y ago
  Thanks for the wading and additional, nuance-providing details. It would still seem that they would first focus on a single tier of support focusing around their favorite few largest OEMs to set the guide for the others. I'm not saying top 20% of devices, but something along the lines of focusing on the an 80-20 principal. Then, if you see a star being born that will disrupt your top picks, bring them in. Market dominance can be sustained that way. Those OEMs aren't going to be making iOS or Lumias. "It's not nice, it's Google." (TM)

by pistle 13y ago

d2dadvisory 13y ago

So I wrote the original post, and I'm always a bit afraid to wade into the comments, but I wanted to respond to this one. Your point is that Google is prioritizing correctly. That they are just going after the big OEMs first and then the guys I'm talking about are too small to bother with. About right? I didn't hammer the point in this post, because I've made it a few other places, but all of these OEMs collectively are bigger than any other single OEM. Collectively, this group produces between one half and two thirds of the world's phones. Most are very small, but many are now huge. Google seems to be focussing on just one or two. I think with a small amount of effort they could tap into the whole audience. It wouldn't require building a huge support structure. And the numbers are huge.

pistle 13y ago
Thanks for the wading and additional, nuance-providing details. It would still seem that they would first focus on a single tier of support focusing around their favorite few largest OEMs to set the guide for the others. I'm not saying top 20% of devices, but something along the lines of focusing on the an 80-20 principal. Then, if you see a star being born that will disrupt your top picks, bring them in. Market dominance can be sustained that way. Those OEMs aren't going to be making iOS or Lumias. "It's not nice, it's Google." (TM)