Related
He makes some good points.
Android Is As Open As The Clenched Fist I’d Like To Punch The Carriers With
MG Siegler
Sep 9, 2010
This past weekend, I wrote a post wondering if Android was surging in the U.S. market because Apple was letting it? The main thought was that by remaining exclusively tied to AT&T, Apple was driving some users to choose Android, which is available on all the U.S. carriers. In the post, I posed a question: if it’s not the iPhone/AT&T deal, why do you choose Android? Nearly 1,000 people responded, and a large percentage focused on the same idea: the idea of “openness.”
You’ll forgive me, but I have to say it: what a load of crap.
In theory, I’m right there with you. The thought of a truly open mobile operating system is very appealing. The problem is that in practice, that’s just simply not the reality of the situation. Maybe if Google had their way, the system would be truly open. But they don’t. Sadly, they have to deal with a very big roadblock: the carriers.
The result of this unfortunate situation is that the so-called open system is quickly revealing itself to be anything but. Further, we’re starting to see that in some cases the carriers may actually be able to exploit this “openness” to create a closed system that may leave you crying for Apple’s closed system — at least theirs looks good and behaves as expected.
Case in point: the last couple of Android phones I’ve gotten as demo units from Google: the EVO 4G and the Droid 2, have been loaded up with crapware installed by the carriers (Sprint and Verizon, respectively). Apple would never let this fly on the iPhone, but the openness of Android means Google has basically no say in the matter. Consumers will get the crapware and they’ll like it. Not only that, plenty of this junk can’t even be uninstalled. How’s that for “open”?
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Earlier this year, Verizon rolled out its own V Cast app store on some BlackBerry devices. This occurred despite that fact that BlackBerry devices have their own app store (App World). From what we’re hearing, Verizon is also planning to launch this store on their Android phones as well in the future. Obviously, this store would be pre-installed, and it would likely be more prominently displayed than Android’s own Market for apps.
Does V Cast have some good content? Probably. But most of it is undoubtedly crap that Verizon is trying to sell you for a high fee. But who cares whether it’s great or it’s crap — isn’t the point of “open” supposed to be that the consumer can choose what they want on their own devices? Instead, open is proving to mean that the carriers can choose what they want to do with Android.
It’s too bad, but there is now a very real risk that the carriers are going to exploit the open system Google set up in order to create a new version of the bull**** proprietary ecosystems that they had before the iPhone came along and turned the market on its side.
And it’s not just Verizon, it’s all the carriers. One of the great features of Android is that you can install apps without going through an app store, right? Well, not if you have an a Motorola Backflip or a HTC Aria running on AT&T — they’ve locked this feature down. How? Thanks to the open Android OS.
Oh, and how about tethering? It’s one of the truly great features of Android 2.2, right? Well, not if you have a carrier that doesn’t want to support it. Google has to defer to them to enable their own native OS feature. It’s such an awesome feature — in the hands of Google. Once the carriers get their hands on it — not so much.
Speaking of Android 2.2, you know it’s out there right? You’ll be forgiven if you don’t because a whopping 4.5 percent of you Android users are currently running it, according to Google’s dashboard. And again, that’s not Google’s fault, that’s all the carriers. Incredibly, over 35 percent of you still aren’t even running any version of Android 2.x. It’s pathetic.
Apple gets crap for not supporting phones that are three years old with OS updates — the open Android system can’t even upgrade phones that are only a few months old in some cases — again, all thanks to the carriers.
The excuses for why this is run rampant. They need to tweak their custom skins, they need to test the new software, etc. It’s all a bunch of garbage. This is an open platform and yet you’re more restricted than on Apple’s supposedly closed one.
What happens when Verizon won’t update your phone to the latest greatest Android software — not because they can’t, but because they want you to upgrade to a new piece of hardware and sign the new two-year agreement that comes along with it? The game remains the same.
My point is not to bash Google — what they’ve created is an excellent mobile operating system. My point is that the same “openness” that Android users are touting as a key selling point of the OS could very well end up being its weak point. If you don’t think Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint are going to try to commandeer the OS in an attempt to return to their glory days where we were all slaves to their towers, you’re being naive.
“Open” is great until you have to define it or defend it. I’m not sure Google can continue to do either in this situation.
And before all of you pros storm the comments with how great it is to root your Android phones, consider the average consumers here. They are the ones being screwed by this exploitation of “open.” Anyone with the desire to do so can fairly easily hack an iPhone too. Open is not a reason to choose Android + carrier vs. iPhone + AT&T.
Update: Oh, and one more great example Michael Prassel reminded me of in the comments — do you want Skype on your Android phone? Well, I hope you have Verizon because otherwise you won’t be able to install it. “Open.” We’re only going to see more of this, not less.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MG Siegler is a piece of trash. All his articles about Android are flame-bait garbage.
Look for his other gems such as:
Is Android Surging Only Because Apple Is Letting It?
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/05/apple-android/
Wait, So 20 Phones On 4 Carriers Outsold 1 Phone On 1 Carrier? Shocking.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/02/iphone-android-sales/
Clearly he's gone off the deep-end and is upset that Android has surpassed his oh-so beloved iphone. So now he results to attacking Android like a 3 year old.
I no longer read Tech Crunch. And you should too if you want unbiased news, which you obviously won't get from this Apple fanboy flamer.
Pure trash.
Paul22000 said:
MG Siegler is a piece of trash. All his articles about Android are flame-bait garbage.
Look for his other gems such as:
Is Android Surging Only Because Apple Is Letting It?
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/05/apple-android/
Wait, So 20 Phones On 4 Carriers Outsold 1 Phone On 1 Carrier? Shocking.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/02/iphone-android-sales/
Clearly he's gone off the deep-end and is upset that Android has surpassed his oh-so beloved iphone. So now he results to attacking Android like a 3 year old.
I no longer read Tech Crunch. And you should too if you want unbiased news, which you obviously won't get from this Apple fanboy flamer.
Pure trash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even if he is an iphone lover, this particular post has some validity. The carriers really are screwing android over. My brother recently bought a Droid X with verizon and asked me to help him root cause he has absolutely no clue on how to do it. He wanted tethering because verizon, like ATnT is charging extra if you want to use tethering natively. So I went a head and root his phone and the phone is nice by all means, but V-Cast was an annoying piece of sh*t that pops up NO MATTER what when you connect your phone to your PC. For users like you and I who do know how to root and reap the benefits then its no problem because we can just ADB remove everything we dont like. But what about for people like my brother? They are stuck with ****ware and functionality like tethering that SHOULD be basic and free, but are forced to pay for if they want to use it. My 2cents, go figure.
Paul22000 said:
MG Siegler is a piece of trash. All his articles about Android are flame-bait garbage.
Look for his other gems such as:
Is Android Surging Only Because Apple Is Letting It?
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/05/apple-android/
Wait, So 20 Phones On 4 Carriers Outsold 1 Phone On 1 Carrier? Shocking.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/02/iphone-android-sales/
Clearly he's gone off the deep-end and is upset that Android has surpassed his oh-so beloved iphone. So now he results to attacking Android like a 3 year old.
I no longer read Tech Crunch. And you should too if you want unbiased news, which you obviously won't get from this Apple fanboy flamer.
Pure trash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That might be true (I haven't read his other pieces), but he's spot-on here. The fact that many (MANY) Android phones don't have any planned upgrade paths to Android 2.2 (some are still running Android 1.6!) simply because the carriers or phone manufacturers say so is quite telling. On the other hand, someone with an original iPhone, which is just turning three years old, can update their OS to 4.0 and enjoy at least some of the new features the platform has to offer.
At its core, Android is quite open. I can download the source for Android 2.2 right now, build it and run it on any ARM-compatible device without repercussion. Not so for iPhone OS. However, the experience that users actually care about is practically indifferent from its competitor and theoretically worse because carriers have much more sway in controlling it than AT&T (or any other carrier that receives it) does on the iPhone. (Verizon's future app store is a case-in-point example, especially if it "replaces" Android market on the devices that will be getting it.)
Zephyron said:
But what about for people like my brother? They are stuck with ****ware and functionality like tethering that SHOULD be basic and free, but are forced to pay for if they want to use it. My 2cents, go figure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everybody has got to start somehwere.
typ_ex said:
Everybody has got to start somehwere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is also true, my brother was just being a lazy ass
This is one of the reasons why carriers love Android.
Yes, it's as open as it can get.
Yes, its openness is exploited by carriers, forcing devices to be lacking functionality / installing bloatware / etc.
These things don't contradict each other.
For a "stupid" end user, there isn't much choice - not all carriers offer vanilla Android devices. On the other hand, the same goes for iPhone - whatever you got there, you got there, whatever apps are supplied by the carrier - you get, if the carrier allows you to tether - it'll make sure you pay for it, and you'll be damn sure you can't install anything unofficial.
For a bit more advanced user, openness is great - once protections are bypassed (and they're bypassed on every device), ROM developers can turn those phones into whatever they want, and since the core of the system is open, you get all the services this core offers you, and carriers can't do a thing.
Not any different from the iPhone that the writer keeps comparing to.
The points are good and true as long as they're taken away from the context of that crappy and intentionally twisted article.
Siegler and arrington are horrible writers, I feel for the other writers at techcrunch because most of the others are good. But any article by those two I take as nothing more then trolling for ad hits, even if somewhere in their crap writing is a few valid points.
If they aren't paid directly by apple they have definite stock interest.
He asks 1000 presumably non-average readers of TechCrunch why THEY chose Android and when they say "openness" he's no longer interested and wants to "consider the average consumer". Who knows what they think dude, they've been buying iPhones, go sit outside a strip mall and ask them? He is essentially arguing with himself here
I'm pretty sure all the people who realize bloatware sucks have the knowledge to do some simple Google searches on how to use ADB.
Just sayin'...
AT&T doesn't put bloatware onto their iPhone's because it's ONLY on AT&T, that in itself is a crime. I guarantee once iPhone is available on other carriers it will have some sort of crap on it... and it won't be removable at all.
You don't even have to root your Android phone to remove crap
In the UK the iPhone is available on all carriers, and there is nothing added to any of them, it's the same ROM for all, how it should be. It's one thing Apple have done right.
Rusty! said:
In the UK the iPhone is available on all carriers, and there is nothing added to any of them, it's the same ROM for all, how it should be. It's one thing Apple have done right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? Well I take back what I said then.
Even though it SHOULDN'T be this way at all. Carriers can do what the hell they want. At least I have a choice between many phones other than just one.
Meh, maybe Gingerbread will change things. I don't think bloatware deteriorates the OS as a whole.. I just think it shouldn't be there... and it's very easy to remove anyway.
Rusty! said:
In the UK the iPhone is available on all carriers, and there is nothing added to any of them, it's the same ROM for all, how it should be. It's one thing Apple have done right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, too bad our botched american system of using cell carriers isnt more similar to the way the rest of the world does it. Then everyone would be happi...(er)
Rusty! said:
In the UK the iPhone is available on all carriers, and there is nothing added to any of them, it's the same ROM for all, how it should be. It's one thing Apple have done right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do the android phones have carrier bloat in them or are they as vanilla as the iphones?
Blueman101 said:
Yeah, too bad our botched american system of using cell carriers isnt more similar to the way the rest of the world does it. Then everyone would be happi...(er)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Free enterprise system at its finest!
EDIT: Not sayin' everyone else is commie....
Before getting a Nexus One, i made sure i researched what android OS is and even bought a used MT3G to root the hell out of it, unroot it, flash radios do all sorts of crap to it and learn as much as i want and now i can say i am pretty confident and things have gotten easier than before.
To get an android phone for my wife i have to wait 2-3 months after a phone is released to see how much support it gets from the community that is how sad android has turned into, the nexus one is great because is open, however i will not expect samsung, lg or any carrier having the intentions on supporting old phones because they don't make money.
If carriers keep butchering android people may start looking the other way.
SiNJiN76 said:
Do the android phones have carrier bloat in them or are they as vanilla as the iphones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android phones get bloatware/branding
O2 still haven't released 2.2 for the Desire over here, and Vodafone were in the middle of a huge ****storm when they released a branding OTA update when everyone was expecting Froyo.
Buying your own SIM free phone is the way forward.
greenstuffs said:
To get an android phone for my wife i have to wait 2-3 months after a phone is released to see how much support it gets from the community that is how sad android has turned into,
If carriers keep butchering android people may start looking the other way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally agree.
I would even argue that Android is worse, because you need to root in order to get the most out of it. That's the same as jailbreaking the iPhone (and at least you know that the hacking community for the iphone is going to be huge)
not necessarily, android(non-rooted) lets you do so much more then a jalbroken iphone.
I will give the author credit for calling out Android's "openness", much like the recent net neutrality things going around, the word "open" is an absolute, something that Android is very close to but still isn't 100%. But still a hell of a lot more open the Apples Draconian Totalitarianism system of ruling its users.
What bugs me about this author is his constant smear campaign about android. I can understand not liking something but really?! This guy writes article after article holding Apple in the light and scorning Android for something, then what happens, all the Apple fans ***** and moan about this feature that Android has had for months if not years, then Apple takes that idea calls it revolutionary, markets the hell out of it, then this author writes an article about how Apple is even better with this new feature that he just condemned on the Android platform.
Android is open. Open does not mean it is easy for users to modify nor does it mean that products made over Android has to be open. Anyone can download the source and do what they will with android. Cyanogenmod is an example of a group of users doing what they want with AOSP. Similarly a phone manufacturer or wireless carrier can do whatever they want with it. What people seem to misunderstand is that the manufacturer and carrier are under no obligation to make it easy (or even possible) to modify the android install on a device or use the modifications they create.
This choice was on purpose. If Google went with GPL (forcing the carriers to open their modifications) it would not have been taken up by the carriers. You can argue if this is reasonable but the fact remains the conservative carriers would not take up a GPLd OS at this time. This does not mean the OS is not open, it simply means that the product that is created by a carrier is not in the control of the user.
Does anyone find it ironic that nearly all HTC phones that are launching as part of the W7 campaign are essentially N1's loaded with w7.
All first gen snapdragons, they all share the N1 styling/materials.
Hopefully we can dual boot w7 due to the similarities. =D
I don't think they are but, I need to see a side by side. I thought most of the new w7 phones had better specs then the n1. But, of we have the best community of any phone out. That is why Google needs to make another dev phone it don't need to be called nexus two......
Check out engadget's front page, mozart,shobert,surround, trophy
Not terribly impressed with the W7 OS. From a UI standpoint, I could see the home screen getting very cluttered and I'm not sure if they have any sort of folder management system either to alleviate that. The multitouch zoom and kinetic scrolling in IE looked fluid but not having text reflow hurts. The Bing app was nice, as was the XBOX Live integration which is cool if you're into that but everything else was very meh. Didn't look awful like previous versions of WinMo but nothing that blew me away either. Still well behind Android and iOS even.
WP7 seems very solid in terms of how it is being handled. I love this quote:
http://twitter.com/edbott/statuses/27039322558
All Windows 7 phones will get updates at same time. Carriers don't get to block. (IOW, this ain't Android)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wish Google had the balls to do that.
Paul22000 said:
I wish Google had the balls to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kind of reminds me of my favorite writer online: MG Seigler of TechCrunch
He really is the voice of the people and calls out Google for folding to the carrier demands like a guy with no confidence that gets walked all over by the hot girl (the carriers) that dont care about anyone else but herself
Here is a great article by MG Seigler on Andy Rubin making excuses for Google folding to whatever the carriers demand so that they can stay in bed with the enemy carriers: http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/08/android-carriers/
Google really needs to grow a pair and take control of Android. A carrier holding out an OS update just so they can force up to purchase a new phone might be the norm but that doesn't mean its right or should be tolerated by Google
Google, by definition, can't control android, do you poeple not understand that?
JCopernicus said:
Google, by definition, can't control android, do you poeple not understand that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn straight.
JCopernicus said:
Google, by definition, can't control android, do you poeple not understand that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's weird I wonder why I even got heated in my post above
I mean hell... thats the whole reason why I got the Nexus One! to not have to deal with carrier games anymore
You meant to say that they cant control android but wield a mighty big stick with gapps didnt you? I tried cm without gapps, pretty much cuts the nuts right off the little android leaving it ineffectual.
in-ef-fec-tu-al adjective 1 Weak. 2 Without satisfactory or decisive effect. 3 Powerless, impotent. 4 Insufficent to produce the desired result.
MS does something right for once in the smartphone arena. Can't we just give credit when it's due?
Text reflow? As far as I know even in CM I have to double tap the browser page to get it to reflow.
The UI looks sweet as hell and not having to worry about carrier tied updates?
Priceless.
I really didn't like the W7 UI, no place for wallpapers and that it's a very negative thing for me
It had a very nice style IMO. I doubt I'll move from my N1, but it's definitely gonna be an interesting game here on out.
ap3604 said:
Kind of reminds me of my favorite writer online: MG Seigler of TechCrunch
He really is the voice of the people and calls out Google for folding to the carrier demands like a guy with no confidence that gets walked all over by the hot girl (the carriers) that dont care about anyone else but herself
Here is a great article by MG Seigler on Andy Rubin making excuses for Google folding to whatever the carriers demand so that they can stay in bed with the enemy carriers: http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/08/android-carriers/
Google really needs to grow a pair and take control of Android. A carrier holding out an OS update just so they can force up to purchase a new phone might be the norm but that doesn't mean its right or should be tolerated by Google
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So do you think you can just build AOSP and dump the result on any phone? No, it has to be tailored per-phone.. What changes there are between phones I wouldn't know, not a rom cook, but I suspect the complexity/time needed ranges from trivial to impossible (HW limitations).
So therefore, Google is not going to build, test, and deploy a build for every Android phone ever made. The carriers have NO INCENTIVE to support older phones.. They have gotten better about this, but they still have no reason to do it honestly, it's not like other industries where hardware sales lose money (printers, game systems, many others) and therefore they need to stretch the users experience with the hardware to the max. Phone sales net the carriers extended contracts and money.
JCopernicus said:
Google, by definition, can't control android, do you poeple not understand that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they can, very easily:
Carrier/Manufacturer: Hey Google, we're going to release a phone with Android 1.5, replace your search with Bing, add some crap-ware, and remove a bunch of useful Android features!
Google: Oh really? Too bad your Android phone won't have Gmail, Google Maps, Google Talk, YouTube, Google Syncing, OR the Android Market!
Carrier/Manufacturer: Hmm...
Paul22000 said:
Actually they can, very easily:
Carrier/Manufacturer: Hey Google, we're going to release a phone with Android 1.5, replace your search with Bing, add some crap-ware, and remove a bunch of useful Android features!
Google: Oh really? Too bad your Android phone won't have Gmail, Google Maps, Google Talk, YouTube, Google Syncing, OR the Android Market!
Carrier/Manufacturer: Hmm...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon doesn't seem to care. This does work though it's how android took off. However, not having gapps is more detremental to Google than carriers. At this point in the game android can survive without native Google applications.
khaytsus said:
So do you think you can just build AOSP and dump the result on any phone? No, it has to be tailored per-phone.. What changes there are between phones I wouldn't know, not a rom cook, but I suspect the complexity/time needed ranges from trivial to impossible (HW limitations).
So therefore, Google is not going to build, test, and deploy a build for every Android phone ever made. The carriers have NO INCENTIVE to support older phones.. They have gotten better about this, but they still have no reason to do it honestly, it's not like other industries where hardware sales lose money (printers, game systems, many others) and therefore they need to stretch the users experience with the hardware to the max. Phone sales net the carriers extended contracts and money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So basically you're justifying carriers holding off hardware updates so that people can dump their 6 month old phone for a new one just to get from 2.1 to 2.2?
That's BS and you know it.
Android gets a new version every other month, and if they do this and leave older users in the dark with carriers blocking updates, Android is NEVER going to be real competition to iOS.
Hardware is just another BS excuse. 2.2 runs fine on even the HTC Dream.
mynameisjon said:
Android gets a new version every other month, and if they do this and leave older users in the dark with carriers blocking updates, Android is NEVER going to be real competition to iOS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android sold more units in Q2 2010 than iOS, so surely its already real competition?
Is just me or is one of the biggest faults with android the various phone form factors that make it impossible to standardize any accessories? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be locked into a single phone running android but it seems the phone manufacturers could maybe design their phones so they have common ports for accessories. I guess we are lucky we at least got a desktop and car dock. Even cars are coming with iphone, ipad docks, you'll never see an android dock.
JCopernicus said:
Google, by definition, can't control android, do you poeple not understand that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google, from a business perspective, doesn't need to control android.
its not its number one priority. yes it could try to twist the carrier's arms, and yes most would fold, but even if only 1 of the big 4 refuses to fold and stops carrying android devices google losses.
google doesnt make money off of android. it makes money off of ads. it just wants you to watch the ads through its portals. you might say they lose that when carriers choose bing over google, but really most of the ads (in apps, around the web) are controlled by google because google owns the online ad market. in fact, they will make money off of the spread of windows 7 phones as well. they entered the mobile business just to make sure neither apple nor microsoft could cut them out of the mobile internet user base and therefore limit the number of users viewing their ads.
btw we are in the nexus one section of xda, which by definition means you cant complain about waiting for updates and carrier and manufacturer crippling. (ha! see what i did there?)
http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-features/54903-is-motorola-getting-ready-to-ditch-android
The article makes several key points:
"Android isn't turning out to be profitable for any company other than Google and even Google's numbers look less than reliable. There are 37 lawsuits on this platform since the beginning of 2010 many filed against companies like Motorola and complaints from the OEM on Google's responsiveness to their concerns are both common and strident," he explained.
"They are not happy and a review of all of this is what pushed HP to buy Palm and avoid Android all together
You have to consider why a company like Motorola would chose to support, or not support an OS - things may not be all that rosy for Google Experience Devices, in fact it sounds like companies like Motorola may actually resent Googles interference, and what they percieve as an inequitable distribution of profit (into Googles Pocket) on these devices.
Developing an operating system isn't something a company "just decides" to do. It takes years, then you have to get the hardware vendors to make systems for it, and the software guys to make software for it. HP already have an OS in WebOS; ditto RIM. Are they swimming in dev love right now?
>"Android isn't turning out to be profitable for any company other than Google"
Moto was near death after the Razr petered out, and was resuscitated back to life with the Droid series. Last I looked, its financials look a lot better than it was before its Android push. Ditto for HTC, which is now riding on a wave of cash. You can check on others.
Every for-profit company in the world is doing things to make...a profit. If it's not profitable, nobody would do it. Now, look at the rate of Android adoption for smartphones. Think all of those vendors are looking to lose money?
The trouble with holding Internet pundits as gospel is that they, like any for-profit entity, don't necessarily care about the facts as they do about sensationalizing them, even to the extent of spouting fibs. The more attention a blog post gets, the more hits, and the more ad revenue. Sad as it is to say, but truth and facts can be boring, and embellishment sells.
I think its all in the informations source. Wasn't there an article a month or two back that essentially discussed exactly how profitable Android is? Essentially calling it Google's most profitable venture ever for both themselves and their partners.
I think the proof is in handset shipments and growth. What is HTC's shipment growth over the past 2 years? Something in the neighborhood of 200%? and their projection is for a 300% increase over that this year? Those handset sales are driven primarily by Android. If they aren't making a profit on those handsets then they would have been unprofitable no matter what, because their prices wouldn't have changed. Whether it be Windows Mobile,Android or Brand Z their new handset is still going to be in the neighborhood of 599-650, so its their responsibility to make sure that price point is profitable for them. I don't see them being able to complain about slow growth since the sales growth and acceptance for the Android platform is pretty much meteoric.
I hardly see Motorola complaining about Android considering it and Verizon essentially saved them from becoming the next Nokia, a brand no one in America cares about. Are they hedging their bets? Possibly. Abandoning Android right now or in the foreseeable future though? I would say absolutely not.
Without Android, its pretty easy to say that Motorola and HTC would be in far worse financial shape than increasing their shipments and profits every quarter than they currently are. (Samsung not so much, they could have continued to be the OEM supplier for screens to HTC/Other brands who want to make phones) But in fact it was so profitable it encouraged Samsung to jump into the market themselves instead of just supplying parts. It gave those companies an instant way to compete with iOS.
Motorola announced today it sold 8.3 million handsets in the second quarter, earning the Mobile Devices division $1.7 billion in sales, and returning the unit to profitability after several quarters of losses. Over 2.7 million smartphones were part of Motorola’s overall handset sales, showing the vast growth in this segment, as the company reported zero smartphone sales in the same quarter in 2009. Although Motorola quarterly results don’t specifically name the biggest catalyst for such a change, it can be summarized in one word: Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats from July of 2010. So from losses to profit, I can hardly see how that "wouldn't be turning out profitable" for them.
e.mote said:
Developing an operating system isn't something a company "just decides" to do. It takes years, then you have to get the hardware vendors to make systems for it, and the software guys to make software for it. HP already have an OS in WebOS; ditto RIM. Are they swimming in dev love right now?
>"Android isn't turning out to be profitable for any company other than Google"
Moto was near death after the Razr petered out, and was resuscitated back to life with the Droid series. Last I looked, its financials look a lot better than it was before its Android push. Ditto for HTC, which is now riding on a wave of cash. You can check on others.
Every for-profit company in the world is doing things to make...a profit. If it's not profitable, nobody would do it. Now, look at the rate of Android adoption for smartphones. Think all of those vendors are looking to lose money?
The trouble with holding Internet pundits as gospel is that they, like any for-profit entity, don't necessarily care about the facts as they do about sensationalizing them, even to the extent of spouting fibs. The more attention a blog post gets, the more hits, and the more ad revenue. Sad as it is to say, but truth and facts can be boring, and embellishment sells.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You both make good points.
Thats when these boards work best. When people actually think through all the facets of a topic and don't just devolve into an Apple good/Android Bad rant.
However, in response to the comment: "Developing an operating system isn't something a company "just decides" to do. "
Certainly it is,
ANDROID is an operating system developed by a company called Google, that just "decided" to create an OS to compete with Apple.
That in turn was developed from an OS called Linux developed by Torvalds as an open source alternative to Windows.
Or take Windows Phone 7 - A company called Microsoft "Just decided to develop" and OS from the ground up to compete with Apple.
Problem isn't developing an OS, problem is marketing it and developing Apps.
Edit: I agree with you that that this is virtually impossible for Motorola. But I would have thought it impossible for HP too and yet, they had the creative insight to buy palm, and now they are doing it. Probably will crash and burn, but bottom line is: They DID abandon android.
Digital Man said:
ANDROID is an operating system developed by a company called Google, that just "decided" to create an OS to compete with Apple.
Or take Windows Phone 7 - A company called Microsoft "Just decided to develop" and OS from the ground up to compete with Apple.
Problem isn't developing an OS, problem is marketing it and developing Apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope you understand that there difference between software companies deciding to make software and hardware companies deciding to make software.
Microsoft and Google already had experience and infrastructure in place to create new software. Motorola will be starting with...nothing. That is why Palm was purchased by HP, they needed a leg up on software experience to make new software development practical.
_RTFM_ said:
I hope you understand that there difference between software companies deciding to make software and hardware companies deciding to make software.
Microsoft and Google already had experience and infrastructure in place to create new software. Motorola will be starting with...nothing. That is why Palm was purchased by HP, they needed a leg up on software experience to make new software development practical.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Knew that one was coming. Thats why companies hire employess. Thats why companies buy other companies.
Thats why companies like HP which are HARDWARE companies buy companies like Palm which are SOFTWARE companies. Whatever it takes to get the job done.
Programmers are people, they can walk from software companies over to the building where the hardware company is located and start working there, on a shiny new OS as soon as they are hired or aquired.
Edit: Might I also point out that Google started as a search engine, not a software company either.
Digital Man said:
Knew that one was coming. Thats why companies hire employess. Thats why companies buy other companies.
Thats why companies like HP which are HARDWARE companies buy companies like Palm which are SOFTWARE companies. Whatever it takes to get the job done.
Programmers are people, they can walk from software companies over to the building where the hardware company is located and start working there, on a shiny new OS as soon as they are hired or aquired.
Edit: Might I also point out that Google started as a search engine, not a software company either.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...ok, but in order for them to walk over there they need to be PAID, and an entire new wing of R&D needs to be built to support them. This is a massive investment that is VERY high risk that takes a long time.
Oh you're right, I had no clue Google started as a search engine. That means they are and have always been a software company. Just because "engine" is in the phrase doesn't mean it isn't software
_RTFM_ said:
...ok, but in order for them to walk over there they need to be PAID, and an entire new wing of R&D needs to be built to support them. This is a massive investment that is VERY high risk that takes a long time.
Oh you're right, I had no clue Google started as a search engine. That means they are and have always been a software company. Just because "engine" is in the phrase doesn't mean it isn't software
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sarcasm aside, no, I'm still not sure a search engine is the same as a hardware operating system....
Her is a good article supporting the alternative point of view however:
Moto ditching Android: Silly Rumor
http://androidcommunity.com/motorola-developing-own-os-silly-rumor-20110325/
Note this line: Motorola is working on their own OS? What? Back that up. Several blogs are putting forth the rumor that Motorola’s friendship with Google is waning and that the cellphone manufacturer has been quietly hiring Apple and Adobe engineers with the aim of developing their own platform OS to compete with Android.
Note the part about quietly hiring from Apple and Adobe.
I honestly don't have a strong opinion one way or the other here. I am primarily playing Devils Advocate by throwing the orignal topic out here for discussion, as it is something that people have been talking about quite a bit on Motorola hardware boards.
I was curious to see other peoples points of view on the story-rumor.
Here is an interesting article about why Google might not care if Android ever makes money.
Android May Be the Greatest Legal Destruction of Wealth in History [Android]
TOP STORIES IN TECHNOLOGY | MARCH 25, 2011
http://gizmodo.com/#!5785983/android-may-be-the-greatest-legal-destruction-of-wealth-in-history
tinpusher said:
Here is an interesting article about why Google might not care if Android ever makes money.
Android May Be the Greatest Legal Destruction of Wealth in History [Android]
TOP STORIES IN TECHNOLOGY | MARCH 25, 2011
http://gizmodo.com/#!5785983/android-may-be-the-greatest-legal-destruction-of-wealth-in-history
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for posting this.
I have to laugh. I started this thread, and in effect was accused of being a conspiracy theorist wearing a tin-foil hat. So it makes me feel better knowing that the guys over at Gizmodo have some pretty shiny head-gear as well.
If Motorola leaves the Android community they would be shooting themselves in the foot. I really have a hard time believing Moto would be that stupid.
Where were they before Android? On the brink of death. Leaving now is suicide. Companies really need to stop thinking they are Apple. Apple is the exception to that proves rule.
If they took all the money they put into this rumored OS and sunk it into a better blur (or option to disable blur), better hardware, and FAST updates... they would rule the market.
th0r615 said:
If Motorola leaves the Android community they would be shooting themselves in the foot. I really have a hard time believing Moto would be that stupid.
Where were they before Android? On the brink of death. Leaving now is suicide. Companies really need to stop thinking they are Apple. Apple is the exception to that proves rule.
If they took all the money they put into this rumored OS and sunk it into a better blur (or option to disable blur), better hardware, and FAST updates... they would rule the market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh hell, some companies like Microsoft shoot themselves in the foot on an almost daily basis. Remember the Kin phone? Here is a quote from an article by Engadget:
"While it's hard to argue that Kin is an awful product, the saddest part of the story is that many of the people responsible for it knew it was -- they were largely victims of political circumstance, forced to release a phone that was practically raw in the middle."
In the end they sold something like 500 of the things.
Remember the Dell streak releasing crippled with Android 1.6?
And then there was windows Vista....
Companies often do things that seem to make no rational business sense.
It would be crazy for them to abandon the platform that single handedly prevented them from going into bankruptcy... Motorola was doing horrible before they teamed up with Verizon and released the Droid OG. Which was an insanely popular device. Motorola should be thanking Verizon and Google for still having jobs right now...
They would be crazy to stop embracing android. Not only is it generating business like crazy (everyone has seen or heard of the enormous numbers of android products being sold, numbers that are unseating the existing leaders of the mobile os market), all indications are that android is still growing. Why abandon success?
Sent from my DROIDX using XDA App
Actually it's as simple as this.. Would you abandon an OS that has the second largest apps for mobile? It would be dumb for any company to do such a thing.. I mean think about it.. What other choices do you have?? WM7, RIM, Palm etc?? It would take years for them to catch up, apps wise.. Right now, what makes these phone manufacturer tick, is the apps behind it.. Hence, that's the reason why I chose Android when I left iphone.. The apps.. So I don't think Motorola would abandon Android and jump ship anytime soon.. Or at all, for that matter..
Yeah I agree. I don't see this happening anytime soon, if at all. Especially looking within a few years down the road.
Motorola should just concentrate on making better quality hardware and leave th software to people who know what they are doing. Motorola use to mean quality, now it's just another phone maker in a sea of the same devices running the same software with nothing really revolutionary to offer buyers. If moto could make an android device with the quality of their razor they would destroy the competition.
The rumor that Moto is hiring software egr's has a glimmer of truth (and subsequently embellished for tabloid consumption). Moto is learning that there is a downside to the Android gravy train, which every co and its sister is jumping onto, and that is lack of differentiation.
Co's are trying different things. Asus is doing the integrated keyboard with the Transformer. HTC has the active digitizer where you can use a stylus. Archos is leaning on its PMP roots with strong multimedia support. But for the majority, differentiation will be minimal (mostly a custom GUI). The main determinant will be price. In other words, Android tabs will be commodity status very soon. This is good for the consumers, but not for the vendors.
This isn't the smartphone market any more, where supply is constrained by the carriers playing as gatekeepers. Price competition will be intense, and slapping on a custom GUI (as has been the practice for smartphones) will no longer be enough. Premium brands in smartphones do not automatically translate to the tablet market.
It'll be a free-for-all. And the guys that win will be those with the best value-add, brand strength, and distribution muscle. For the first, you need software peeps. Which is why Moto is stocking up.
Digital Man said:
Might I also point out that Google started as a search engine, not a software company either.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This sentence does not make any sense
hi_its_ryan said:
This sentence does not make any sense
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just saying that something doesn't make sense isn't very helpful. Try explaining WHY it doesn't make sense.
That would add something to the discussion.
http://investor.google.com/releases/2011/0815.html
Game changer? Thoughts as to what it means for us xoomers?
I was coming to post this as well.. Friggin sweet... The true Google device..
dubsjw27 said:
http://investor.google.com/releases/2011/0815.html
Game changer? Thoughts as to what it means for us xoomers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. This one is being reported all across the interwebs at the moment.
First of all if I were HTC and Samsung I would be LIVID right now. Both companies have stacked a lot of chips on Android and may now be seeing that as not as sure a bet as they thought. It would make sense for Google to now keep its flagship devices "in house" and have them made by Moto Mobile. This is going to freeze both companies out of the plum position of producing the concept devices for each new version of Android.
What does this foretell for the future? First of all I would not be surprised to see both HTC and Samsung trying to repair connections with Microsoft, and looking again at making a larger commitment to Windows Phone 7.
For we Xoom users, it heavily improves the odds of us seeing an official ICS release by the end of the year. That was already likely since the Xoom was being used to demo the software, but now will be even more so.
Interesting days ahead.
It gives me a little more confidence that the xoom won't be left behind as quickly as we all thought it would be.
Great move for all Android partners
If anything, this protects HTC and Samsung's Android business from patents claims against them. Google will use it's new patent muscle as a deterrent. Google stated Motorola will be a licensee just like the others. I'm sure all new GED's will be Moto but I doubt the influence will extend much beyond that.
Well, I want this:
Motorola has a lot of patents on mobile / smartphone technology.
So, I want Google to use those patents to protect Android!
I don't know how ... but I dreamed this to shut up that Apple patent troll.
Probably, Google intention was mainly for Motorola patents.
linuxdood said:
If anything, this protects HTC and Samsung's Android business from patents claims against them. Google will use it's new patent muscle as a deterrent. Google stated Motorola will be a licensee just like the others. I'm sure all new GED's will be Moto but I doubt the influence will extend much beyond that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that this is a good move in the long-term for Android as a platform...but I think you underestimate the influence that being the sole source of GEDs will give Moto. They will be the glass of fashion.
Google will continue to provide the software to all it's partners, sure...but I think we are coming up very swiftly on a new synthesis of hardware and software...basically the Apple model accepted as the norm. Apple vs Google/Moto vs Microsoft/Nokia.
My question now is...who buys RIM. My guess is Microsoft.
Well, my day just got better.
Google has been outspoken about unlockable bootloaders. Could this mean all upcoming Google/Motorola devices will be fully unlockable?
Moto blur is now officially killed
How sweet ...
UPDATE:
So, the purchase is to defend Android ...
Update: More quotes from Android partners after the break.
Peter Chou, CEO, HTC:
We welcome the news of today's acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.
Bert Nordberg, President & CEO, Sony Ericsson:
I welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.
Jong-Seok Park, President & CEO, LG:
We welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe they will purchase htc, samsung, etc.....
I expect this kind of news in the future:
GOOGLE is suing Apple for some (Motorola) patents infringement.
Then in negotiation:
Apple: So, what's now? How do we settle?
Google: Easy, drop all your lousy law suits on Android manufacturers
That would be epic!
armychris28210 said:
Maybe they will purchase htc, samsung, etc.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes! And then they will concentrate on one phone, to make it perfect with all their new know how. To enhance the security they get rid of the open source ****, and make it perfectly usable and easy by integrating it to Google Music as the only way to put music on the device. It will be called the GPhone and it will...ohhh...wait...
gogol said:
UPDATE:
So, the purchase is to defend Android ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it certainly is, at least partially. Patents are the big deal these days.
However, as for the parts of the deal that are about getting an in house hardware maker being downplayed...what else are the brass of HTC, Sony Ericsson and LG going to say?
It reminds me of the losers on The Bachelor "He totally like made the right choice...I really think this is for the best and hope they will be very happy...."
We will see how they really feel if the announcements of additional WM7 phones start picking up speed.
>First of all if I were HTC and Samsung I would be LIVID right now.
Co-opetition is the nature of business (and a lot of other areas). Things are always more complicated than the black-or-white, friend-or-foe picture people try to paint. MS is in with Nokia, but other co's are still making WP7 phones. It all depends on what makes sense (read: profit).
That the deal happens is not because of Moto Mobo's hardware capability, but for its patent portfolio.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903392904576509953821437960.html
>It would make sense for Google to now keep its flagship devices "in house" and have them made by Moto Mobile.
No, it doesn't. That would go against everything that it has built Android to be, which is an "open", device- (and vendor-) agnostic OS. If it wants to destroy Android, that would be the surest way to go about it.
>For we Xoom users, it heavily improves the odds of us seeing an official ICS release by the end of the year.
I don't see it changes the picture any wrt the Xoom. As a GED device (for US model), the odds were always in favor of Xoom getting official ICS--and for most Teg2 tabs from major vendors, for that matter.
The acquisition will take place over some months, long after the Xoom has come and gone. I don't see Moto getting any "nicer" with supporting the Xoom just because it will be part of Goog. The Xoom is just one of many Moto products, and its replacements are already in the pipe.
e.mote said:
No, it doesn't. That would go against everything that it has built Android to be, which is an "open", device- (and vendor-) agnostic OS. If it wants to destroy Android, that would be the surest way to go about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is not completely accurate. Google has always selected one vendor for each version to develop the flagship GED device. The vendors have competed heavily to get those contracts since they involved a lot of interaction with the software design team and a leg up on smooth integration.
Now, it will make sense for Moto to have those prototype devices, as it means that Google will be able to control the process even further.
Android is vendor-agnostic, but each version has always had one vendor who was first amongst equals...and that will now be Moto.
RonnieFoxxx said:
Google has been outspoken about unlockable bootloaders. Could this mean all upcoming Google/Motorola devices will be fully unlockable?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unlocked, not unlockable!
>Now, it will make sense for Moto to have those prototype devices, as it means that Google will be able to control the process even further.
I don't see this as a big deal. Having the Xoom released first didn't help Moto any wrt to sales, nor was having a GED a benefit to the user experience. Xoom users do get updates a bit faster, but other devices have value-added functionality (eg SD card, Splashtop, etc) that the Xoom lacks, OOB.
As far as "controlling the experience," that remains to be seen. It's hard to say with this 1st-gen as a gauge, as HC has been an ongoing beta for ICS. We'll have to see what Goog will do with its newly acquired hardware arm. I think it should be emphasized that the acquisition is more to shore up its patent stash than to "control the Android experience." Goog's failed 6.5B attempt to acquire Nortel's patents is indicative of its need in this area.
rschenck said:
Wow. This one is being reported all across the interwebs at the moment.
First of all if I were HTC and Samsung I would be LIVID right now. Both companies have stacked a lot of chips on Android and may now be seeing that as not as sure a bet as they thought. It would make sense for Google to now keep its flagship devices "in house" and have them made by Moto Mobile. This is going to freeze both companies out of the plum position of producing the concept devices for each new version of Android.
What does this foretell for the future? First of all I would not be surprised to see both HTC and Samsung trying to repair connections with Microsoft, and looking again at making a larger commitment to Windows Phone 7.
For we Xoom users, it heavily improves the odds of us seeing an official ICS release by the end of the year. That was already likely since the Xoom was being used to demo the software, but now will be even more so.
Interesting days ahead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't be silly, android is an open source project device manufacturers will still be able to put their customizations out and will still be shipping phones with old versions of android. This deal will have no impact on android device manufacturers other then patent protection
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
I've been talking a lot with my friends about this who are also Android users. I know there are a lot of opinions about the Pixel, so I thought it would be interesting to make a thread to check back on in 6 months from launch to see how things panned out. At the end of the day either Google is correct with this phone, or the community was right in predicting the change. I figured 6 months is enough time to get the phone in the pipeline and where a price cut would be susceptible if one were to occur.
Here's my analysis:
Existing problems:
1. Pixel phone contains basic vanilla Android at the same price as an iPhone and Samsung with feature filled software skins.
2. Apple and Samsung both have established their product in the marketplace, unlike the Pixel. Samsung didn't get any real traction until the Galaxy S3/Note 3.........three generations in.....this is Pixel's first.
3. The biggest competitor (Galaxy/Note 7), both have expandable SD card storage and water resistance that the Pixel does not.
4. Only exclusive on Verizon, which allows only a small population to get it subsidized. (Both Apple/Samsung sell contract subsidized phones for BOTH Verizon and Sprint which creates a lower barrier to entry).
5. Google assistant which is one of its selling points, I don't see a huge immediate use for it unlike a better camera, or water resistance. There is a variant of this type of technology already out. It's called "SIRI" for iPhone and "S-Voice" for Samsung. It's been out for years and I don't know anyone personally who uses either on a daily basis. (or at all)
6. There are no "frills" to this phone. I keep saying that, however; the typically buyer of iPhone/Samsung do not know anything about the internals or the hardware. (How else would Apple get people to buy $3,000 laptops ? It's not the hardware they are buying). The phone is just too plain for mainstream appeal. Next time you see someone with a Samsung ask them if their bootloader is locked........then ask it in Japanese....you'll get the same response.
Pixel is taking aim at "mainstream", yet offering very little in terms of "frills" that mainstream typically likes yet charging flagship pricing. There is already a significant conflict in this strategy.
It's obvious based on the chart I uploaded Google's competency is not hardware unlike Apple......which would explain a lot. While I love Android, it's a small revenue of their overall revenue. Most likely, they are looking to diversify from just search and add to the bottom line as well from the smartphone market. It's very bold to try and compete against Apple that gets 53% of their overall revenue from iPhone alone, when Google has very little experience in that area (hardware).
Prediction:
In 6 months (or less), the Pixel phones will get price cuts to the same price as the 5x ($379) and 6p ($499). The phone won't be a flop and Google will keep it, but the price point was set too high. I don't think the phone is a total bust, but I do think with 99% certainty that this was priced too high to be competitive........Google just doesn't know it yet
Google right now can't even manage a proper messenger app (messenger, hangouts, allo.....seriously which one am I supposed to use Google ?), canceled Project Ara, canceled Google Glass, etc.......there's a lack of direction with the company needless to say.
Edit: Google search for Pixel compared to iPhone and Galaxy S7 (I left out Note 7 due to exploding battery interest) which has fallen off a cliff since the Pixel debut.
great post =) I agree with you
Well written. Very clear.
For me there is also a design problem.
The material design is too white and hurts my eyes especially in the evening. A dark theme is needed. So I am using Aquamail and not Gmail and apps with a dark theme. And black layers.
Maybe the Chinese will produce a better and cheaper phone. Who knows.
Maybe G is heading to a closed system ?
Or it could be the repeat of Google Pixel C with temporary "developer" discounts before the price goes back to list price. They don't seem to be too bothered about shifting stock.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA-Developers mobile app
According to The Verge websites interview with Google's hardware chief, Google knows the first generation Pixel phone won't sale in volumes and expects to gain little market share, apparently there is long term strategy behind the scenes with the release of these first Pixel phones. Here's a quote from that article.
"We certainly arent going to have enormous volumes out of this product. This is very first innings for us." Googles metric of success for Pixel wont be whether it picks up significant market share, but whether it can garner customer satisfaction and form retail and carrier partnerships that Google can leverage for years to come."
http://www.theverge.com/a/google-pixel-phone-new-hardware-interview-2016
As for the cancellation of Google Glass and other Google hardware, that was done by the recently hired Google hardware chief so he could bring all the hardware teams together to focus on same objectives, so it appears Google now has a sense of direction, thanks to this new hardware chief aka ex-Motorola president. Here's a quote from another interview, just for reference.
"When Osterloh, 44, came on board in mid-April, he brought Google hardware groups into one division, shuttering projects he didn't see contributing to Googles future. Now the engineers and designers from Google Glass, Chromecast and Pixel all work together. Keeping them separate, he says, made it hard to drive toward the goal of portfolio strategy and focus."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-google-s-first-real-threat-to-apple-s-iphone
In order to gain customer satisfaction they need to have customers, and the feedback everywhere I look is that they've already caused dissatisfaction with their prices and therefore won't have a solid customer base - especially after alienating so many Nexus owners with the ludicrous six-week Nougat delay and the dropping of the Nexus line.
dahawthorne said:
In order to gain customer satisfaction they need to have customers, and the feedback everywhere I look is that they've already caused dissatisfaction with their prices and therefore won't have a solid customer base - especially after alienating so many Nexus owners with the ludicrous six-week Nougat delay and the dropping of the Nexus line.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As much as I love the Nexus and it's contributing users, they probably don't make up enough market share for Google to care. Most Nexus owners are phone enthusiasts, who make up a very small percentage of the smartphone market.
Some Pixel phones are already sold out in the Google Store, so people are buying them. It remains to be seen if it will be enough for their "Customer Satisfaction" goal but from their interview, they don't seem to feel the need to sell a whole lot in order to make that goal, at least initially.
mikeprius said:
I've been talking a lot with my friends about this who are also Android users. I know there are a lot of opinions about the Pixel, so I thought it would be interesting to make a thread to check back on in 6 months from launch to see how things panned out. At the end of the day either Google is correct with this phone, or the community was right in predicting the change. I figured 6 months is enough time to get the phone in the pipeline and where a price cut would be susceptible if one were to occur.
Here's my analysis:
Existing problems:
1. Pixel phone contains basic vanilla Android at the same price as an iPhone and Samsung with feature filled software skins.
This is called Bloat to me basic vanilla Android is a huge plus
2. Apple and Samsung both have established their product in the marketplace, unlike the Pixel. Samsung didn't get any real traction until the Galaxy S3/Note 3.........three generations in.....this is Pixel's first.
Even though Samsungs are some of the most bloated locked down devices and iPhones are not Android devices Google with Pixel branding I just a continuation. I do agree more Samsung Devices and iPhones will be sold but so what?
3. The biggest competitor (Galaxy/Note 7), both have expandable SD card storage and water resistance that the Pixel does not.
My new phone will have 128Gig do I really need more, unlimited cloud storage for photos will help too
4. Only exclusive on Verizon, which allows only a small population to get it subsidized. (Both Apple/Samsung sell contract subsidized phones for BOTH Verizon and Sprint which creates a lower barrier to entry).
I am not American but they do sell SIM unlocked devices in the States do they not?
5. Google assistant which is one of its selling points, I don't see a huge immediate use for it unlike a better camera, or water resistance. There is a variant of this type of technology already out. It's called "SIRI" for iPhone and "S-Voice" for Samsung. It's been out for years and I don't know anyone personally who uses either on a daily basis. (or at all)
I owned 16 smartphones since the iPhone and not once did lack of water resistance bother me and I had zero devices with water damage. Google Assist can not see me using it often but only time will tell
6. There are no "frills" to this phone. I keep saying that, however; the typically buyer of iPhone/Samsung do not know anything about the internals or the hardware. (How else would Apple get people to buy $3,000 laptops ? It's not the hardware they are buying). The phone is just too plain for mainstream appeal. Next time you see someone with a Samsung ask them if their bootloader is locked........then ask it in Japanese....you'll get the same response.
First to get Android updates, first device with Qualcomm 821, first with official daydream support, and yes at least some say this will have the best camera
Pixel is taking aim at "mainstream", yet offering very little in terms of "frills" that mainstream typically likes yet charging flagship pricing. There is already a significant conflict in this strategy.
Why do you think they are gearing this for the mainstream, they never had in the past?
It's obvious based on the chart I uploaded Google's competency is not hardware unlike Apple......which would explain a lot. While I love Android, it's a small revenue of their overall revenue. Most likely, they are looking to diversify from just search and add to the bottom line as well from the smartphone market. It's very bold to try and compete against Apple that gets 53% of their overall revenue from iPhone alone, when Google has very little experience in that area (hardware).
Google builds nothing they are contracting HTC to build the Pixel, Pixel XL. Nobody expects them every to sell more of the current Pixel phones than Apple sells
Prediction:
In 6 months (or less), the Pixel phones will get price cuts to the same price as the 5x ($379) and 6p ($499). The phone won't be a flop and Google will keep it, but the price point was set too high. I don't think the phone is a total bust, but I do think with 99% certainty that this was priced too high to be competitive........Google just doesn't know it yet
Google right now can't even manage a proper messenger app (messenger, hangouts, allo.....seriously which one am I supposed to use Google ?), canceled Project Ara, canceled Google Glass, etc.......there's a lack of direction with the company needless to say.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who knows about the price I do know the 32 Gig Nexus 6p was selling for $600 Canadian (I do not know what American pay) and in 6 months I can not see Google pricing the Pixel XL 32Gig lower. Sell more than Samsung and Apple no not believes this will every happen but different people by Samsung and Apple. People that generally never visit XDA and they are happy with whatever bloat Samsung and Apple gives them.
Maybe they are trying to create the equivalent of surface devices like Microsoft? I have no clue how that helps either of the companies. Maybe the idea is to just create a premium brand Google running Android even if every device sold loses money. Kind of like what Acura has to do with the NSX. It's an attempt to push the brand into a premium device discussion.
However, I definitely don't see anything that premium in the device. I don't see anything that premium in an iPhone either except that the lemmings have decided it is a premium product so like the unreliable Mercedes Benz cars out there, they retain resale value. At some point it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
To achieve a perception of being a premium product like Apple products, Google probably has to fire most of the tech guys running the hardware division and hire a real marketing team. The Oct 4 presentation was astonishingly lackluster. Same amount of glamour as a BlackBerry presentation. Bunch of geeks thinking just because they have a search engine cash cow, they must know everything else there is to know about the business world.
Honestly what the Nexus/pixel and allo/duo/messenger/hangouts mess should teach us is that these guys like going back to the drawing board way too often. This is not a mature company and will abandon loyal customers without hesitation if someone decides that's the cool thing to do. Project Fi customers, you will be next.
So in a nutshell don't over analyze Google, it's just a bunch of high school kids doing experiments in a Chemistry Lab. At some point there will be purple foam and a few explosions.
And there is no point hitching yourself to this wagon. Don't buy anything Google tries to market as premium. They don't have the discipline to maintain a message. Eventually everything they sell will be priced like a commodity.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA-Developers mobile app
might want to modify the thread title's date. It's currently "10/5/16-4/5/16"; I'm pretty sure you meant "10/5/16-4/5/17"
First device with SD821? Not.
Google/Nexus phones were successful, because they targeted a specific niche that no one else did; devs/enthusiasts/folks who wanted to tinker and modify their phones completely and without restrictions.
Pixel phones have NOTHING that is "niche" driven; they are just like Apple/Samsung/who ever, with nothing really unique(S Pen, etc) to attract anyone really..
Sure, they will get the curious newbie/Iphone/Samsung lovers, but, those folks already have alot of choices, and those choices have alot more "features" that those folks want.
So, I cant fathom how this device will be anything more than a novelty, especially at that ridiculous price point..
mikeprius said:
I've been talking a lot with my friends about this who are also Android users. I know there are a lot of opinions about the Pixel, so I thought it would be interesting to make a thread to check back on in 6 months from launch to see how things panned out. At the end of the day either Google is correct with this phone, or the community was right in predicting the change. I figured 6 months is enough time to get the phone in the pipeline and where a price cut would be susceptible if one were to occur.
Yadda, yadda, yadda............................................[emoji23]
.
Google right now can't even manage a proper messenger app (messenger, hangouts, allo.....seriously which one am I supposed to use Google ?), canceled Project Ara, canceled Google Glass, etc.......there's a lack of direction with the company needless to say.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great post! Lots of info there. [SARCASM] You might have a bit too much time on your hands though. [emoji1] [/SARCASM]
khanam said:
Honestly what the Nexus/pixel and allo/duo/messenger/hangouts mess should teach us is that these guys like going back to the drawing board way too often. This is not a mature company and will abandon loyal customers without hesitation if someone decides that's the cool thing to do. Project Fi customers, you will be next.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IMO, Nexus/Pixel is not a mess, they are simply trying to gain market share other than the developer/techie community. I would bet that they will end up partnering with all of the major carriers to sell the phones subsidized, Verizon just got the nod for release day because it is the biggest. The pixels will also come down in price from the play store as well.
As far as the Duo/allo/hangouts/messenger thing, from what I've been reading they are trying to market hangouts to the enterprise side of the mobile market. I never really used it for anything other than video calls now and again. Duo is much more convenient for video calls, although I wish they would have just incorporated it into the dialer kind of how FaceTime is on iphone. I don't know what to think about allo. It doesn't handle sms, and it doesn't do anything that other already established apps do as good or better.
I'm just going to wait it out to see if the price comes down, or if my carrier gets it. If not, oh well, I will explore other options at that time. After all I'm still paying for my N6 through January...
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
mikeprius said:
1. Pixel phone contains basic vanilla Android at the same price as an iPhone and Samsung with feature filled software skins.
2. Apple and Samsung both have established their product in the marketplace, unlike the Pixel. Samsung didn't get any real traction until the Galaxy S3/Note 3.........three generations in.....this is Pixel's first.
3. The biggest competitor (Galaxy/Note 7), both have expandable SD card storage and water resistance that the Pixel does not.
4. Only exclusive on Verizon, which allows only a small population to get it subsidized. (Both Apple/Samsung sell contract subsidized phones for BOTH Verizon and Sprint which creates a lower barrier to entry).
5. Google assistant which is one of its selling points, I don't see a huge immediate use for it unlike a better camera, or water resistance. There is a variant of this type of technology already out. It's called "SIRI" for iPhone and "S-Voice" for Samsung. It's been out for years and I don't know anyone personally who uses either on a daily basis. (or at all)
6. There are no "frills" to this phone. I keep saying that, however; the typically buyer of iPhone/Samsung do not know anything about the internals or the hardware. (How else would Apple get people to buy $3,000 laptops ? It's not the hardware they are buying). The phone is just too plain for mainstream appeal. Next time you see someone with a Samsung ask them if their bootloader is locked........then ask it in Japanese....you'll get the same response.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. If you asked a user what was the difference between Touchwiz and vanilla Android, until Material Design the only thing they said was: Samsung looks nicer. Because Holo was ugly. But Material design changed that, so now basic Android is not ugly anymore. As for the gimmicks, a casual user will only use a fraction of the TouchWiz "features", and a vanilla Android user will not be missing any of those "features".
Pixel ha nice round icons, and a praised camera. You can consider it sold.
2. From the above linked interview this is the first step to establish Pixel as a product for the masses and not just for the techies. The are planning to sell 3-4 million units (good look with that). But even that's at least one order or magnitude below of the quantity Samsung and Apple sell. Google never bragged how many units they sold, you can't find official statistics, but it's obviously "not a damn lot", that's for sure.
3. And the iPhone does not have an SD card slot. The Galaxy S6 was a mistake for Samsung in every aspect, because they took away three things in one step: SD card, removable battery and custom roms. So there was a huge uproar, much bigger if they only played with these feature one at a time.
I too prefer an SD card, coming from Samsung phones, it was given, yet after one year using a mere 32GB phone I still live. So it's not a make/brake condition for me when buying a new phone.
5. It's a gimmick like Samsung's air gestures, keep awake when reading, knock twice on top to scroll to the top. You use it once then forget it. I bet for a week or two everybody will play with the assistant then forget it.
Compared to that Google Now cards are very useful, I use the Time to work, Time home card every day, and it helps avoiding the construction that kills the city, and to decide when it's totally beyond reason to leave home.
6. There are no real "frills". There are only those that some marketing think tank succeeds in convincing you that you actually need it. The camera is a frill enough to sell it, so it's the speed. Having the hardware from the start Google could optimize it a little to be better than the other manufacturers.
It is a mess. I compare it to the failures Apple had right after the Lisa, nonsense sales prediction with a exorbitant price point.
They can partner with as many carriers as they want over there (America, the world isn't just that) or try to subsidise phones.
Worldwide subsidisation of phones is impractical. And outside America the prices are even worse.
Highway 55 said:
IMO, Nexus/Pixel is not a mess, they are simply trying to gain market share other than the developer/techie community. I would bet that they will end up partnering with all of the major carriers to sell the phones subsidized, Verizon just got the nod for release day because it is the biggest. The pixels will also come down in price from the play store as well.
As far as the Duo/allo/hangouts/messenger thing, from what I've been reading they are trying to market hangouts to the enterprise side of the mobile market. I never really used it for anything other than video calls now and again. Duo is much more convenient for video calls, although I wish they would have just incorporated it into the dialer kind of how FaceTime is on iphone. I don't know what to think about allo. It doesn't handle sms, and it doesn't do anything that other already established apps do as good or better.
I'm just going to wait it out to see if the price comes down, or if my carrier gets it. If not, oh well, I will explore other options at that time. After all I'm still paying for my N6 through January...
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not sure why they abandoned hangouts for consumers - it was quite an all encompassing product for most of us between everything it handled - it just needed some tightening and polish but we finally had SMS, Voicemail, Video calling, IM, IP Calling all in 1. Now i have too many apps - when i instead want to simplify my life. No one likes to have something they were finding useful suddenly lose features - that just reeks of big brotherism - someone else deciding whats best for me instead of considering my own inputs.
On the pixel/nexus thing though - the way they should have done it is kept the nexus line alive and added a pixel or 2 phones with slightly more premium features but at a slightly higher price, then next generation a little higher price and so on.
That would have given all of us time to adjust and experiment. You do not just increase prices and abandon the nexus line without warning. That feels like them deciding what is best for us - like apple does. Give consumers choice, price products appropriately and allow them to cross bridges on price, features etc.
This abandoning nexus and replacing it with a non vanilla high priced pixel move is too sudden. That is why it feels like they do not listen to consumers and instead impose their vision on us. Who would like that? I chose to abandon iOS to have freedom - but the more they take those away from me - the more i look at Google and say, well this is not what i wanted. Locked bootloaders - does that not go against the very foundation of Android?
Another point - this AI push through Allo/Assistant is slowly going to convert you into a data contribution toward an engine - do you actually need to pay extra to lose your privacy - should that not happen in such a way that you get a discount on other products (i.e. your phone for example) which act as the conduit for your revealing your choices to the central database/skynet?
unfortunately, the mopes who sit in the production/sales meeting, only care about looking good to their bosses/making their bosses look good, and raise profits for shareholders..
They talk about how much Apple/Samsung charge for their phones, and sell 20 times more than Google does, so they figure, hey, lets just copy their business model, and we will look like heros.
Customers needs/wants get pushed to the back of the list, and market share/greater profits are all that matters..
And yeah, it sucks that we can now pay more for another "me too" phone, and, at the same time, surrender even more of our privacy, while paying through the nose for another Apple Clone..
No thanks, never a Pixel phone for me, at ANY price..
mixedguy said:
As much as I love the Nexus and it's contributing users, they probably don't make up enough market share for Google to care. Most Nexus owners are phone enthusiasts, who make up a very small percentage of the smartphone market.
Some Pixel phones are already sold out in the Google Store, so people are buying them. It remains to be seen if it will be enough for their "Customer Satisfaction" goal but from their interview, they don't seem to feel the need to sell a whole lot in order to make that goal, at least initially.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nexus no..it's a small segment. Android as a whole for Google is a very small amount of their revenue. Clearly the release of the Pixel is designed to make it a more considerable source of revenue for Google. They are not very diversified at the moment. All their money is in search.
AstroDigital said:
Who knows about the price I do know the 32 Gig Nexus 6p was selling for $600 Canadian (I do not know what American pay) and in 6 months I can not see Google pricing the Pixel XL 32Gig lower. Sell more than Samsung and Apple no not believes this will every happen but different people by Samsung and Apple. People that generally never visit XDA and they are happy with whatever bloat Samsung and Apple gives them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The United States there are 4 primary carriers (there are others, but the big 4 are AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile). Before all 4 carriers did this, but 2 still do and that is offer 24 month contracts to be signed for a subsidized phone. So for example a $800 iPhone can be bought at Verizon or Sprint for $200-$300 depending on the model, current or past, etc, etc. That's how iPhone was able to be made available in mass. There's no way the people in the US could buy these phones outright at their current cost in large populations. It's outside many people's affordability.
All these products full price are out of the affordability for nearly everyone, so either they use the contract or use payments. With exclusive Verizon, everyone will do payments or buy outright (smaller population)......many people still use the contract that I know, taking this off the table for one carrier reduces accessibility.
Also, 2 of the 4 carriers in the US are CMDA technology not GSM so unlocked phones are limited. My carrier is CMDA so I cannot buy Xperia, One plus 3, or Axon 7. If I could, I'd have bought the One plus 3. Instead I'm stuck with the Nexus or some "whitelisted" device.
istperson said:
1. If you asked a user what was the difference between Touchwiz and vanilla Android, until Material Design the only thing they said was: Samsung looks nicer. Because Holo was ugly. But Material design changed that, so now basic Android is not ugly anymore. As for the gimmicks, a casual user will only use a fraction of the TouchWiz "features", and a vanilla Android user will not be missing any of those "features".
Pixel ha nice round icons, and a praised camera. You can consider it sold.
2. From the above linked interview this is the first step to establish Pixel as a product for the masses and not just for the techies. The are planning to sell 3-4 million units (good look with that). But even that's at least one order or magnitude below of the quantity Samsung and Apple sell. Google never bragged how many units they sold, you can't find official statistics, but it's obviously "not a damn lot", that's for sure.
3. And the iPhone does not have an SD card slot. The Galaxy S6 was a mistake for Samsung in every aspect, because they took away three things in one step: SD card, removable battery and custom roms. So there was a huge uproar, much bigger if they only played with these feature one at a time.
I too prefer an SD card, coming from Samsung phones, it was given, yet after one year using a mere 32GB phone I still live. So it's not a make/brake condition for me when buying a new phone.
5. It's a gimmick like Samsung's air gestures, keep awake when reading, knock twice on top to scroll to the top. You use it once then forget it. I bet for a week or two everybody will play with the assistant then forget it.
Compared to that Google Now cards are very useful, I use the Time to work, Time home card every day, and it helps avoiding the construction that kills the city, and to decide when it's totally beyond reason to leave home.
6. There are no real "frills". There are only those that some marketing think tank succeeds in convincing you that you actually need it. The camera is a frill enough to sell it, so it's the speed. Having the hardware from the start Google could optimize it a little to be better than the other manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I can laugh at most people who become enamored with gimmicks, that's what sells. The stupid air gestures, and whatever toggles Samsung has that people flock to. They have no idea what chip is in their phone. Same goes for iPhone.
Everything else you are saying are your own personal preferences, not what mainstream people want. Majority of society is easily distracted by shiny gimmicks, engages in herd mentality buying decisions, and want instant gratification........these people are not "astute buyers" by any means, but they are the people who open their wallets and purses to buy these products.............it's pathetic but that's how the market is. Samsung and iPhone meet all these "needs". Pixel does not.
mixedguy said:
According to The Verge websites interview with Google's hardware chief, Google knows the first generation Pixel phone won't sale in volumes and expects to gain little market share, apparently there is long term strategy behind the scenes with the release of these first Pixel phones. Here's a quote from that article.
"We certainly arent going to have enormous volumes out of this product. This is very first innings for us." Googles metric of success for Pixel wont be whether it picks up significant market share, but whether it can garner customer satisfaction and form retail and carrier partnerships that Google can leverage for years to come."
http://www.theverge.com/a/google-pixel-phone-new-hardware-interview-2016
As for the cancellation of Google Glass and other Google hardware, that was done by the recently hired Google hardware chief so he could bring all the hardware teams together to focus on same objectives, so it appears Google now has a sense of direction, thanks to this new hardware chief aka ex-Motorola president. Here's a quote from another interview, just for reference.
"When Osterloh, 44, came on board in mid-April, he brought Google hardware groups into one division, shuttering projects he didn't see contributing to Googles future. Now the engineers and designers from Google Glass, Chromecast and Pixel all work together. Keeping them separate, he says, made it hard to drive toward the goal of portfolio strategy and focus."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-google-s-first-real-threat-to-apple-s-iphone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Google glass and other hardware that they were experimenting with does make sense b/c it was untested and they were looking at pioneering a new potential product. There's no existing prior benchmark. That has more leeway including cancellation which I understand. I think long-term it is a good idea Google has more control over the hardware and not just software because there has been too much fragmentation across the board in devices and with other Google products.
With that said, smartphones have been out for many years now, with the saturation really beginning to take hold in 2009 and forward (where more and more people were rapidly buying smartphones). There's enough data they could have made a more intelligent analysis on how to price the product (which I suspect is way too high).