3 ms·

I think this could be very detrimental for Android's future. My biggest concerns: 1) Google's implementation is going to instantly become the reference platfor

by jsz0 17y ago

I think this could be very detrimental for Android's future. My biggest concerns: 1) Google's implementation is going to instantly become the reference platform for Android. Third party handsets will probably have to conform closely to its screen size, processing power, and input methods to play nicely with third party apps. This is ultimately a good thing for end user experience but will negatively impact the variety of different Android handsets on the market. 2) It's confusing. Android has its own proper name but most people know it's a Google powered/developed project. Is the average consumer going to understand there is a "Google Phone" but also Google phones? Even if Google has no anti-competitive intentions here they are going to cast a shadow on their competitors on their brand strength alone. 3) Google is going to have a huge competitive advantage. They can time the release of their hardware to match up with major Android releases. They will have a clearer understanding of where Android is heading and what types of hardware features will be supported in the long-term. Google's wealth and influence guarantee they will always have first mover advantage. Let's say company X comes out with an amazing new SoC. Google is quick to port Android over and quick to get a handset to market. Competitors get the trickle down support but won't have a product out the door until long after Google. 4) What is Google's motivation? The latest batch of Android phones look fantastic. There is no need for a Google first party device as a supplement to the other handsets on the market. This leads me to believe Google is getting into this space to win. I don't know how they can possibly juggle their multiple roles here. It's a no-win situation. Even if they play this straight the appearance of dishonesty and anti-competitive tactics is going to be a huge problem. This is an amazing turn of events. A week ago I would have said Android had an inevitable path to Windows-izing mobiles. After this news I feel like these handset makers would be crazy to look at Android as a long term solution. If Google is getting into this market they're doing it to win. They apparently don't want to Windows-ize mobiles, they want to Apple-tize it for themselves. What a crazy turn of events.

stcredzero 17y ago
Third party handsets will probably have to conform closely to its screen size, processing power, and input methods to play nicely with third party apps. Isn't the whole point of Android that this isn't required? Is the average consumer going to understand there is a "Google Phone" but also Google phones? Very easy to address with branding/marketing. Think Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus. Google is going to have a huge competitive advantage. But it's in their DNA to give up a tactical short-term gain for a big long-term strategic win, of the kind involving Open Source. What is Google's motivation? The latest batch of Android phones look fantastic. There is no need for a Google first party device as a supplement to the other handsets on the market. This leads me to believe Google is getting into this space to win. I think they're getting in this space precisely because there is no need for their phone to win. It's their platform that needs to win. Therefore they are free to innovate, unencumbered by the pressures that the carriers will face. I think they're in this space to exert pressure to innovate. Instead of the "public option" think of them as the "innovative option."
mbrubeck 17y ago
1) I doubt that a Google-distributed phone would eclipse the phones distributed by carriers, at least in the US (because of the subsidy model). With new Android tablets, netbooks, phones, and more esoteric devices being released every month, I think a single handset model sold by Google and probably without much marketing (it's against Google's DNA to run television ads, for example) will be just a drop in the bucket. 2) Some of this is already an issue (and already partly addressed). Android handset makers have the option of branding their phones with the Google trademark (like the "T-Mobile G1 with Google"). If they do, then they get to distribute Google's proprietary apps (GMail, Maps, Google Calendar/Contacts sync, etc.) but they also have to agree not to change certain parts of the user experience (e.g. can't restrict access to the Android Market). My parents already call my G1 "the gPhone" but as dozens of Android handsets come out from every carrier and manufacturer, I'm sure they'll get the picture that it's more like Windows Mobile than the iPhone. 3) Google and the hardware manfacturers already have agreements in place (via the Open Handset Alliance) where the manufacturers can work with Google under NDA on not-yet-published Android releases. 4) I hope that Google's motivation is to sell a device that's more open than the ones from the carriers. Actually, they already sell such a device (the "Android Dev Phone 1" which is the same HTC Dream hardware as the T-Mobile G1) but it's slow and clunky compared to the new generation of hardware. It makes sense for them to offer an Android Dev Phone 2 soon. Right now the ADP1 is the only phone with a supported way for customers to upgrade the OS (i.e. without using a root exploit to jailbreak it). A rootable phone is mostly useful for developers, but just look at the iPhone jailbreaking scene to see that certain consumers want it too.

by jsz0 17y ago

stcredzero 17y ago

Third party handsets will probably have to conform closely to its screen size, processing power, and input methods to play nicely with third party apps. Isn't the whole point of Android that this isn't required? Is the average consumer going to understand there is a "Google Phone" but also Google phones? Very easy to address with branding/marketing. Think Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus. Google is going to have a huge competitive advantage. But it's in their DNA to give up a tactical short-term gain for a big long-term strategic win, of the kind involving Open Source. What is Google's motivation? The latest batch of Android phones look fantastic. There is no need for a Google first party device as a supplement to the other handsets on the market. This leads me to believe Google is getting into this space to win. I think they're getting in this space precisely because there is no need for their phone to win. It's their platform that needs to win. Therefore they are free to innovate, unencumbered by the pressures that the carriers will face. I think they're in this space to exert pressure to innovate. Instead of the "public option" think of them as the "innovative option."

mbrubeck 17y ago

1) I doubt that a Google-distributed phone would eclipse the phones distributed by carriers, at least in the US (because of the subsidy model). With new Android tablets, netbooks, phones, and more esoteric devices being released every month, I think a single handset model sold by Google and probably without much marketing (it's against Google's DNA to run television ads, for example) will be just a drop in the bucket. 2) Some of this is already an issue (and already partly addressed). Android handset makers have the option of branding their phones with the Google trademark (like the "T-Mobile G1 with Google"). If they do, then they get to distribute Google's proprietary apps (GMail, Maps, Google Calendar/Contacts sync, etc.) but they also have to agree not to change certain parts of the user experience (e.g. can't restrict access to the Android Market). My parents already call my G1 "the gPhone" but as dozens of Android handsets come out from every carrier and manufacturer, I'm sure they'll get the picture that it's more like Windows Mobile than the iPhone. 3) Google and the hardware manfacturers already have agreements in place (via the Open Handset Alliance) where the manufacturers can work with Google under NDA on not-yet-published Android releases. 4) I hope that Google's motivation is to sell a device that's more open than the ones from the carriers. Actually, they already sell such a device (the "Android Dev Phone 1" which is the same HTC Dream hardware as the T-Mobile G1) but it's slow and clunky compared to the new generation of hardware. It makes sense for them to offer an Android Dev Phone 2 soon. Right now the ADP1 is the only phone with a supported way for customers to upgrade the OS (i.e. without using a root exploit to jailbreak it). A rootable phone is mostly useful for developers, but just look at the iPhone jailbreaking scene to see that certain consumers want it too.