02-04-2011, 03:11 PM

Why Android Honeycomb should have Apple scared
Why Android Honeycomb should have Apple scared - Fortune Tech

02-04-2011, 04:23 PM

And why they're not:

Preorders of Apple's iPhone 4 break Verizon sales record in 2 hours

02-04-2011, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by RONE

And why they're not:

Preorders of Apple's iPhone 4 break Verizon sales record in 2 hours

I'm sorry, but I really don't see how that's relevant. Sure its impressive, but phone sales are completely different from tablet sales given they are different devices.

Apple should be scared and the recent statements by Tim Cook perhaps reflect that concern. iOS is becoming stale and Apple will soon need to pull something out of their hat or risk playing catch up later. They need a big revamp for iOS.

02-04-2011, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Fisher85

Apple should be scared and the recent statements by Tim Cook perhaps reflect that concern. iOS is becoming stale and Apple will soon need to pull something out of their hat or risk playing catch up later. They need a big revamp for iOS.

That statement is subjective at best. That being said however, Apple will likely doing just that right now. I don't think they are just sitting back and doing nothing so I suspect there isn't much for them to be "scared" of now or any time in the immediate future. Just because we don't know what they are doing doesn't mean they are doing nothing, in fact the opposite is quite likely true.

While Android is moving foreword it is still hobbled by one significant factor regardless of the type of platform, and that is the platforms themselves. Some of them are very well made, most of them are mediocre at best and a some of them are just downright shoddy. Based on the simple inconsistency of hardware, Apple will continue to have a place in the market and the corresponding revenue among users. Making the whole box is still attractive to many and will continue to be well into the future.

Now, if Google graduates to making their own hardware, and can do a good job like Apple does, then Apple might have reason to worry. Until then, it's all good.

02-04-2011, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Fisher85

I'm sorry, but I really don't see how that's relevant. Sure its impressive, but phone sales are completely different from tablet sales given they are different devices.

Ok, here's a tablet-specific figure for you instead.
Apple sold more than 2 million iPads in the first 2 months. Galaxy Tab took 3 months to reach 2 million (and that # is based on how many they shipped to stores - not their actual sales to customers). So, it remains to be seen how well the Motorola Xoom and other Android tablets fair in comparison.
Samsung Backtracks on Galaxy Tab Sales Figures – Shipments, Not Sales | Android Community

02-04-2011, 11:26 PM

I think the only fear that might be looming around Apple right now is not having enough
product to fill the demand.

02-04-2011, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by baggss

That statement is subjective at best. That being said however, Apple will likely doing just that right now. I don't think they are just sitting back and doing nothing so I suspect there isn't much for them to be "scared" of now or any time in the immediate future. Just because we don't know what they are doing doesn't mean they are doing nothing, in fact the opposite is quite likely true.

While Android is moving foreword it is still hobbled by one significant factor regardless of the type of platform, and that is the platforms themselves. Some of them are very well made, most of them are mediocre at best and a some of them are just downright shoddy. Based on the simple inconsistency of hardware, Apple will continue to have a place in the market and the corresponding revenue among users. Making the whole box is still attractive to many and will continue to be well into the future.

Now, if Google graduates to making their own hardware, and can do a good job like Apple does, then Apple might have reason to worry. Until then, it's all good.

Agreed. I also wonder how long Google's shareholders will allow them to commit the kind of resources it must take to support a project like Android, given that it generates little to no revenue for the company.

Much like Linux, Android's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness - diversity of hardware, form factor and UI are severely fragmenting the market. A tablet-specific flavor only muddies the waters further.

I liked my Android phone quite a bit when I first got it, but it turned pretty sour after having to wait 6 months for incremental updates to the OS because HTC needed leadtime to adapter its Sense UI to the latest update. And when it did arrive, it made my phone buggier and more inefficient than it had been from the get-go. I listen to my Droid Incredible reboot periodically for no reason. I miss phone calls while I wait for the UI to reboot when I unlock the screen (it craps out from time to time). I lose the 3G radio for no reason and have to reboot the phone.

If this is the cost of "openness", I'll take a chance on Apple's closed platform gladly.

02-05-2011, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by cwa107

If this is the cost of "openness", I'll take a chance on Apple's closed platform gladly.

Seems like a good number of VZWs Android users might agree with you. The biggest inter-company platform jump seems to be Android users.

An "open" platform will always have a place, there will always be plenty of users who don't care, who prefer the "open"standard or just plain don't like Apples "closed" style. In the end though, the closed platform will always demand and get the premium from the users, will always be a better overall platform and will always have a place in the market. Linux's lack of real world use has taught us that if nothing else.

02-05-2011, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by baggss

Seems like a good number of VZWs Android users might agree with you. The biggest inter-company platform jump seems to be Android users.

An "open" platform will always have a place, there will always be plenty of users who don't care, who prefer the "open"standard or just plain don't like Apples "closed" style. In the end though, the closed platform will always demand and get the premium from the users, will always be a better overall platform and will always have a place in the market. Linux's lack of real world use has taught us that if nothing else.

Completely agree with you. Apple will definitely look at what the Honeycomb brings to the table, and based on how the features are received I'm sure Apple will consider making something like it in their own way.

02-05-2011, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by ezcompane

Completely agree with you. Apple will definitely look at what the Honeycomb brings to the table, and based on how the features are received I'm sure Apple will consider making something like it in their own way.

Something better I'm sure.

02-05-2011, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by cwa107

I also wonder how long Google's shareholders will allow them to commit the kind of resources it must take to support a project like Android, given that it generates little to no revenue for the company.

Google's shareholders will continue to support anything that Google wants to do, as long as Google keeps on making money hand over fist. Most folks don't understand Google's business model. I can assure you that Google's "free" software generates huge amounts of revenue for Google.

Google is very much unlike other companies that you might compare it to; competitors such as Microsoft, Apple, Nokia, Amazon, etc.

Microsoft makes most of their money selling software. (XBox is a notable exception.). Apple makes most of their money selling hardware. Apple writes a lot of software, and does make money from it, but that software generally only exists to sell Apple hardware. (Which is why you see so few of Apple's applications ported to run on Windows PC's, even though that seems to be another logical source of revenue.) Nokia makes their money selling their cell phones. They purchase their smart-phone's OS. (Or they purchase a company that makes smart-phone OS's.) Amazon makes their money reselling other companies' goods. Even their Kindle is more or less a loss-leader to help them sell books.

Google doesn't make their money the same way as any of the above companies. Google makes their money selling advertisements. Google writes a lot of software and offers lots of services, such as their search engine, Android, Chrome, Maps, YouTube, Gmail, etc., but the vast majority of the software and services that Google offers is free. They are free because they are just vehicles for Google to present advertising. (They are also free because that makes them irresistible.) The sale of that advertising is how Google makes a ton of money. It is an unusual and very successful business model; similar to how television and radio (at least prior to the advent of cable and satellite radio) work.

The more that Google's advertising vehicles are before the public, the more advertising Google sells. Google's smart phone and slate operating systems have been wildly popular with smart phone and slate developers. (As you might expect. Android is reasonably good, it is regularly updated, and it is free.) That has made Google's advertising very prevalent on mobile devices. That has made Google, and will continue to make Google, a fortune. Google practically owns online advertising.

If Google hadn't offered free OS's for smart phones and slate devices, Google's presence on these devices could easily have been marginalized at any time. There are plenty of alternatives to just about all of Google's software and services offerings. At any point the device makers could have put the squeeze on Google by extorting money from Google to continue to use Google's software and keep Google's ads in front of the public.

Instead, thanks to Google's free OS's, Google now has the mobile device makers where they want them. There are very strict rules associated with device makers using Google's OS's. Those rules require that all of Google's advertisement vehicles stay in place exactly as Google dictates. See:
Is Android Evil? | VisionMobile :: blog

In fact, this bring up another interesting point. It's kind of ironic that many users see Android vs. iOS as a debate between open versus closed. Google controls with an iron fist the exact software and hardware make-up on every mobile device sold using their OS. It's just that they don't care about things that aren't directly related to their bread and butter: advertising. I guaranty you that if you came up with an application that interfered or competed with Google's advertising on an Android device, it would never see the light of day.

___________________________________________

Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)

Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
OS X Maintenance And Troubleshooting
___________________________________________

02-05-2011, 07:34 AM

I agree with the comments here. I think Apple have a lot to be worried about too. But I think Google have a lot to be worried here too.

It's simple. Google can't enforce the adoption rate of it's new OS versions to the hardware. If a hardware manufacturer or mobile carrier does not want to use the latest version of the OS in the latest version of the hardware, they don't have to. So it would be possible to by a new Android device without the latest Android OS. This would lead to OS fragmentation. Just like there is hardware fragmentation existing now. This not very good for Google at all.

Plus Google has no real power over how much the carriers add (ie bloat ware) to the devices before the end users get them. All issues simply cause Google does not control the hardware.

It's all ok for the time being. Cause in this case Google are like MS. In the way that as long as they turn a good profit they don't care how Good their return on investment for R&D is. Or in others words their R&D dollars are not very wisely spent at all. Sure they have the profits to cover this. But the fact still exists.

Apple on the other had also have the profit to cover a little less well spend R&D. But no. Apple is so strict with their R&D dollar.Every dollar spend must have a purpose and dedicated goal and just be researched to ensure it's the best way to spend that dollar.

In these times of plenty when things are going well it'll be ok. But in times when the bottom line is cut short, then those with the most effective methods will come out on top. Cause when things go down (and they eventually will) this wasteful R&D and other spending will come back to hurt them.

02-05-2011, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Randy B. Singer

Google controls with an iron fist the exact software and hardware make-up on every mobile device sold using their OS. It's just that they don't care about things that aren't directly related to their bread and butter: advertising. I guaranty you that if you came up with an application that interfered or competed with Google's advertising on an Android device, it would never see the light of day.

If that's true then they are doing a poor job with that "iron fist". There is way too much shoddy hardware running the Android OS there, regardless of what Google or you may claim. It's not hard to find, a trip to any Cell company store will reveal a lot of it. On top of all of that, if Google is using that "iron fist" in any real sense, the opens source folks that write their software would rebel and flee in droves. An iron fist is the exact opposite of what the open source community is about. In the end, as long as their ads get pushed on the consumers, I suspect Google could care less about the quality of the hardware that it's running on. This again seems evident by the amount of shoddy hardware out there running Android.

As for advertising, I absolutely agree. That IS Googles bottom line and that is where their money comes from. They are different but that doesn't make them better in any way, shape or form.

02-05-2011, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by the8thark

Google can't enforce the adoption rate of it's new OS versions to the hardware. If a hardware manufacturer or mobile carrier does not want to use the latest version of the OS in the latest version of the hardware, they don't have to.

Nor can Apple. In no way are iOS device users required to upgrade their devices when a new version comes out. Now, to be fair, iOS devices are sold with the newest version at the time.

Originally Posted by baggss

If that's true then they are doing a poor job with that "iron fist". There is way too much shoddy hardware running the Android OS there, regardless of what Google or you may claim.

True but that doesn't seem to be slowing down sales of Android devices which as you mentioned, is perhaps more important for Google than controlling the hardware.

02-05-2011, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by vansmith

True but that doesn't seem to be slowing down sales of Android devices which as you mentioned, is perhaps more important for Google than controlling the hardware.

Agreed. What makes that statement interesting is details about VZWs pre-orders the other day. The single biggest loser was Android as users dumped their platform and ordered iPhones. That's JUST existing VZW customers, not people jumping in from the outside. That right there tells us something. Maybe it has no relation to this topic but I can't help but think that it does.