Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Could Soon Start To Twist Google's Arm

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-more-mister-nice-guy dept.

Android 214

Hugh Pickens writes "For the past three years, Android has experienced a kind of free space expansion, but as we enter 2012, it seems the game may be changing. Instead of the old 'there's more than enough room for every Android handset maker to be a winner,' we have a three-horse's-length leader: Samsung shipping close to 55% of all Android phones, while Motorola and HTC lag behind. '[Samsung] could be in a position to twist Google's arm,' writes Jean-Louis Gassée.'If last quarter's trend continues — if Motorola and HTC lose even more ground — Samsung's bargaining position will become even stronger.' But what is Samsung's 'bargaining position'? What could they want? Perhaps more search referral money, earlier access to Android releases, or a share of advertising revenue. Will Google let Samsung gain the upper hand? It's not likely, because Motorola is about to become a fully-owned but 'independent' Google subsidiary, and its 16% of the Android market could counterbalance Samsung's influence to some extent. So what could Samsung do? 'Consider the Kindle Fire example: Just like Amazon picked the Android lock, Samsung could grab the Android Open Source code and create its own unlicensed but fully legal smartphone OS and still benefit from a portion of Android apps, or it could build its own app store the way Amazon did,' writes Gassée. 'Samsung is a tough, determined fighter and won't let Google dictate its future. The same can be said of Google. This is going to be interesting.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Platform in-fighting (2, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643412)

John Gruber asked an interesting question in response to this: Has any single PC vendor ever controlled that much of the Windows market? It's going to be very interesting to see how Android vendors respond to Google entering the handset market. It can't be good for the platform to have vendors forking the operating system just to snipe at each other. It's already fragmented enough with TouchWiz and all the other junkware, and popular phones that are months old don't even get major updates [businessinsider.com] . This kind of unregulated chaos is exactly what so many critics predicted; it may even be an opportunity for Microsoft to win some Windows Phone deals as carriers decide they don't want to run a competing vendor's operating system. Whatever happens this year, I'm sure iPhone users will grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.

Re:Platform in-fighting (2)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643478)

Whatever happens this year, I'm sure iPhone users will grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.

I'm not sure that iPhone users are sitting back eating popcorn anymore.

Re:Platform in-fighting (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643582)

so? I'm not invested in Apple stock. I don't think Apple's going anywhere. It's not like the last time steve left. Death took him this time, not john sculley and a bunch of suits.

Re:Platform in-fighting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643690)

Why the fuck do people get all us versus them over a GODDAMN PHONE! I mean really, its a bloody phone...

Re:Platform in-fighting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643844)

In the middle ages, one of the popes got all the kings of Europe together, and told them, "You shouldn't fight each other so much." The kings looked at each other, confused, and asked, "What do we do then, if we aren't fighting?"

Maybe people fight over the phone because they have nothing else to do. And really, arguing which phone is better is a harmless way to spend your time. About the same harm level as raging over people who get all 'us versus them' over a phone.

Re:Platform in-fighting (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644530)

In the middle ages, one of the popes got all the kings of Europe together, and told them, "You shouldn't fight each other so much." The kings looked at each other, confused, and asked, "What do we do then, if we aren't fighting?"

[citation needed]

Re:Platform in-fighting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644978)

The pope is God's mouth on earth, so why would you need a citation?

Re:Platform in-fighting (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643966)

There's an emotional attachment to Android in certain tech communities because it runs Linux and it's from Google. It's been positioned as an open alternative, which taps into that desire to feel like a freedom fighter battling against evil closed corporations. A lot of the ideals that Android has been marketed with not so coincidentally align with the stereotypical desires of communities like Slashdot.

Certainly, there's an emotional attachment to Apple products from its fans, but they've spent so many years as underdogs that they don't obsess over marketshare numbers the way Android fans do. Their smugness comes from a "quality over quantity" mindset. Marketshare is relatively unimportant when it comes to determining the success of a product, but it gets fetishized around here like crazy.

Re:Platform in-fighting (4, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643864)

I'm not sure that iPhone users are sitting back eating popcorn anymore.

My remark was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but why wouldn't they be? The iPhone 4S has been the top selling handset for months, and iOS sees much more third-party developer support--developer support for Android actually decreased in 2011 [flurry.com] . And iOS is the #1 mobile OS on the web, which suggests a large portion of Android users are budget buyers who aren't even using their smartphones as smartphones.

I don't say all this to further more smartphone OS wars but to point out that the stereotypical image of Android as some all-devouring conquerer isn't accurate. When iPads and iPods are counted, iOS actually has more total marketshare--for whatever marketshare is worth in terms of "victory", which isn't as much as Slashdotters think.

Re:Platform in-fighting (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644478)

And iOS is the #1 mobile OS on the web, which suggests a large portion of Android users are budget buyers who aren't even using their smartphones as smartphones.

Careful with that quote. Too many use it without realizing that its the iPad that makes up about two thirds of the iOS presence.

Re:Platform in-fighting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644950)

Also, the "quote" is completely off base.

It could simply mean that Android users are using their phones even MORE like smartphones. The study only ranked MOBILE BROWSER.

1) People who use custom Android browsers like Dolphin, Opera, Firefox have the option to set their user agents (some of which do it on install). Some of them have an "impersonate" desktop and i device option since not all websites recognize the Android user agent. This could skew the percentage by a large margin.
2) Apps? Every time someone uses their Facebook application, it does *NOT* count as a mobile browser hit. Same with a whole bunch of websites like Cracked, Netflix, etc. JavaME tends not to have custom applications (and even then, most people don't look for said applications because they think it's just a "stupid cellphone"), so it makes sense that they would NEED to use their browser and hence hit number two.

Re:Platform in-fighting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644732)

You are such a pathetic loser bonch. This would be very funny if not so sad.

Why don't you go out and meet some people for a change? I'm sure even an old guy like you can find some other man to love him! Seriously.

Re:Platform in-fighting (0)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644296)

Why wouldn't we be did Apple pull the popcorn app?

Re:Platform in-fighting (0)

kanguro (1237830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38646258)

You can be sure some of us are. The sheer stupidity of google destroying itself via fragmentation and poor quality apps & user experience is mesmerizing. Even Windows Phone is going to get something of this. Let me tell you what's going to happen next: 1. Samsung will fork. We will have GAndroid and Sandroid. Ultimately Sandroid will win, because Samsung is going to get it right, while Gandroid is going to suffer from the same illness than it is suffering now. Some phones still don't get major releases in the middle of a giant clusterfuck of roms, carriers, and hardware makers, converting Gandroid in the perfect system for geeks and the ultimate user nightmare. 2. Everyone will pay dearly to Oracle for the Java licensing, as Microsoft did in previous times. 3. The tablet space for android does not exist at this time, properly. Let me say it again, people does not want tablets, they want iPads. The future challengers will be the Sandroid tablets and surprise, surprise... Windows 8 tablets. This is going to get one in the guts for the android fanbois, but they don't understand the dormant giant and its weight in the world. They never did. Most a pity. 4. Apple will reign supreme as the elite brand and best user experience for some years. Who knows how many, now that Steve's gone, but some they will. And we will eat the popcorn reading about all this in our Quad HD 3D iPads in this very site.

Re:Platform in-fighting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643568)

John Gruber? Oh, you must mean somebody mentioned it to him and he repeated it. Given his copy-pasta M.O., he ought to change his name to Samsung.

Re:Platform in-fighting (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643584)

Whatever happens this year, I'm sure iPhone users will grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.

That's because iPhone users don't have anything better to do with their time. Unless you count being a delusional, self-important hipster. Or working at Starbucks.

Re:Platform in-fighting (0, Flamebait)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643744)

Whatever happens this year, I'm sure iPhone users will grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.

I own an iPhone and an iPad. They are well built at least but I can't do shit with them. Plays 1% of my movies, no functional bluetooth, no emulators. Pretty much all apps are toys. I never got the fuzzy feeling Apple users rave about. My next purchase will be Android. If I can install Android on the iPad 2 I would be even happier.

Re:Platform in-fighting (5, Insightful)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643942)

Toys?

A friend of mine got an iPad 2 for Christmas. By New Years he had it on his corporate VPN, administrating his Oracle RAC and vSphere from my living room while we watched movies. The Windows remote desktop programs are very good. So are the Microsoft Office document readers.

If all you are finding are toy apps, you're not looking hard enough or you're limiting yourself to the free stuff.

Re:Platform in-fighting (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645614)

Don't forget email. Another staple of the enterprise, that is readily supported..

Re:Platform in-fighting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38645906)

We have an iPad for support and it is next to useless since it can only really be used with a command line, or touch managed interface. Even the command line interface requires a keyboard attached. Not having a mouse makes it useless to manage Windows machines. Have you ever tried to use a touch interface to resize a window on Windows?

At least android tablets allow for a mouse which is essential for supporting a window based system.

Re:Platform in-fighting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644184)

>> Plays 1% of my movies

Cinexplayer or Air Video. VLC if you're jailbroken will play anything.

>> no functional bluetooth

Please elaborate. Bluetooth works great for me (headsets, speakers, keyboards, tethering, etc).

>> no emulators

Tons of emulators for jailbroken devices.

>> Pretty much all apps are toys.

Not even close. I have dozens of non-toy apps on my phone, and there are obviously tens of thousands more. You're not looking.

The real question is, if you don't like iOS, why did you get an iPhone AND an iPad?? Didn't you realize after one that you don't like it?

Re:Platform in-fighting (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644984)

If you have to use the term "jailbreak" in order to get desired functionality out of a device then there is something very wrong. I'd love for my parents to get an iPad, it would cut my support calls down immensely. I have my rooted Xoom that does a heck of a lot more than any i* device. It isn't pretty and it doesn't have nearly as many apps, but it allows me to sideload and develop on my Linux machine, two major deal-breakers for me purchasing an Apple product. Both sides have their obnoxious uber-fans and that is a shame. I'll continue using the best tool for the job at hand, if in 2 years that becomes an Apple device, that will be the route that I go. No devotion, no brand loyalty, just pragmatism.

Re:Platform in-fighting (1)

anethema (99553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645636)

I'm curious you rooted the xoom why the opposition to jailbreaking the iphone? You're still just getting root on the device.

I'm also curious what you can do on the rooted xoom you can't do on a jailbroken idevice? I'll have to get back into Android I think. Back when the Nexus One was out I got one and I found it to be a far less capable rooted device than a Jailbroken iPhone.

No proper SSH suite (OpenSSH), no proper GNU tools (only busybox) etc etc. The excuse I got in the forums was always some BS about it being an embedded device. Once you hit 512mb of ram and 1GHz CPU's it is hardly necessary to use garbage like dropbear and busybox.

Have things improved to help make the device a full featured computer ? On the iPhone I can code compile etc whatever I want. I run samba and/or sftp for file access, I run VNC so I can work on the phone from the computer. I can plug it in via HDMI on my TV if I like to watch shows or have a bigger work surface.

I can get right into the VPN at work, full exchange support for email, and really almost anything else I want. I haven't found it very limiting at all.

Re:Platform in-fighting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38645318)

>> Cinexplayer or Air Video

Are there any that don't need a remote server to hammer your data, or your CPU (battery) since it doesn't have hardware acceleration?

>> no functional bluetooth

When's the last time you tried to send an arbitrary file over bluetooth?

Your "jailbroken": So you're suggesting that the OP void his warranty and potentially fubar his device just to get functionality that other people are enjoying (for free)?

And the answer to your last question: it's popular. People tend to get what's popular. Those issues he brought up aren't exactly major issues. A collection of minor issues might eventually upset someone to the point of leaving that product.

Re:Platform in-fighting (3, Informative)

danomac (1032160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643774)

Samsung already has their own app store. It actually says there's free apps and games in it that aren't available in the normal android marketplace, although I don't know if that's true or not. It's simply called "Samsung Apps" on my phone (Galaxy S) and was there when I bought it.

It's plausible they thought of this back then already and will try to aggressively market it on their phones, possibly in other languages? It even has its own sign-in mechanism.

That could be interesting, I didn't really think about it that way when I got my phone.

Re:Platform in-fighting (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643870)

Aye, somewhat of a dark horse here. Prepping things. Showing their new TV with apps now, and their new ad platform, I think Google's in serious risk of losing their main partner, or them not being as strong a union as before. I can totally see it from Samsung's side 'well, we can use that code base and make our own version, or with GoogleTV not really hitting it's stride atm, but our platform having a good chance, and we get to keep all the revenue, then... why do we really need you to join us in this?"

All this time, you'd think it'd be Apple the main competitor to Google, now it could turn out to be Samsung.

Re:Platform in-fighting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643898)

We all understand that your retirement and pension funds are all in Apple stock.

However, Samsung has one advantage: They don't lock their bootloaders. This means that obsolete phones will be easily updated to CyanogenMod, and that is as good as any OS comes, as it is updated and maintained extremely well.

Wake me up when the iPhone can have a blacklist of incoming phone messages or IMs, or other functionality Steve or Tim deliberately chose to eschew, and lock out third party alternatives. (Without jailbreaking, of course... relying on a JB app is pointless when an OS update + being forced to restore can lock you out for months.)

Re:Platform in-fighting (0)

stoborrobots (577882) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644962)

They don't lock their bootloaders.

Didn't. I wouldn't count on that remaining the same going forward...

(And I say this as an owner of several Samsung devices...)

No platform in-fighting (5, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645888)

John Gruber asked an interesting question in response to this: Has any single PC vendor ever controlled that much of the Windows market?

Gruber is normally full of shit and here he does not disappoint me.

In case we've forgotten, there was a time where IBM controlled almost all of the PC market. They didn't dominate Microsoft.

Right now Intel has 60% + of the Windows CPU market (probably above 75%, but I dont have numbers on hand) and they dont dictate terms to MS. There are only three GPU vendors, Intel, Nvidia and AMD. Do any of them dictate terms to MS?

So, Grubers point is pretty much bollocks.

There is no platform infighting here. HTC are competing with, not fighting against Samsung. Same with Motorola, LG, SonyEriksson and others. Samsung dont hold anything over Google or other vendors.

I'm sure iPhone users will grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.

As they continue to watch the Iphone fall behind in features and market share. Even with the majority of Android phones being sold with 2.3.x they are still outselling Iphones. People are choosing Android, as much as the Iphone fans like to pretend otherwise.

I Hope They Do (-1, Troll)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643414)

Just because Google thinks they can dictate anyone and tell them what to do with impunity. Google has changed over the last 5 years. There's a really great article about Google's supposed openness [seobook.com] and how it's just an marketing gimmick when it suits them. It has a point about Android too.

Android is open but internal Google emails revealed that carriers were getting wise to Google using compatibility as a club.

Everyone should read read that article about Google because it is spot on, and just shows how evil they are.

Re:I Hope They Do (5, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643574)

Just because Google thinks they can dictate anyone and tell them what to do with impunity.

Well they did write the thing. This is Slashdot, where an open source developer is something more and less than a saint, to be quoted reverently, loved as a brother, feared as a tyrant, and accorded all the perquisites of an 18th level mage. Everybody knows that a copyright license is a holy compact, reifying Lockean rights and Benedictine virtue, and none shall interfere with the licensor's prerogatives (unless the licensor is rich, "doesn't give back to the community," or creates something that isn't source code, that is).

We've seen this before.... (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643508)

Open Source software has a tradition of ending up this way, especially when it's a program that needs custom hardware. (See also: Asterisk) First there's a surge in competitive hardware providers... then one of the hardware providers merges with the software provider and they then become the only hardware maker left. Doesn't require that you be the #1 vendor coming in, that follows once you become the official one.

Re:We've seen this before.... (3, Interesting)

JSG (82708) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643974)

Nice analogy but bollocks I'm afraid. I run several Asterisk systems, including at home.

POTS n ISDN cards - Digium (Asterisk coders) and Sangoma. I'm aware of others.
Handsets - there are masses of suppliers of VoIP handsets.
The thing itself can run on pretty much any 32 or 64 based Linux system and I believe it can run on Windows
There are several specific distros - Digium's own, Trixbox, PIaF, Elastix and many more

On top of that there is FreeSwitch as an alternative software stack for VoIP.

I can't think of many more open markets.

Re:We've seen this before.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644162)

Trixbox + Polycom handsets with Sangoma PRI board, here.

Re:We've seen this before.... (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38646092)

Nice analogy but bollocks I'm afraid. I run several Asterisk systems, including at home.

POTS n ISDN cards - Digium (Asterisk coders) and Sangoma. I'm aware of others.
Handsets - there are masses of suppliers of VoIP handsets.
The thing itself can run on pretty much any 32 or 64 based Linux system and I believe it can run on Windows
There are several specific distros - Digium's own, Trixbox, PIaF, Elastix and many more

On top of that there is FreeSwitch as an alternative software stack for VoIP.

I can't think of many more open markets.

This, PABX hardware didn't fail because of Asterisk, it failed because of the take up in VOIP. Why should I deploy a separate cable infrastructure for phones when I could just buy a bunch of IP handsets and use VLANs on my existing network?

If you look at single solution PABX's they've done the exact same thing. A 10 user licensed PABX now comes with one Ethernet port for all handsets.

Meanwhile, I can run Asterisk on a VM, connect it to any number of VOIP handsets and have a fully operational PABX that is cheap to run, works on my existing HW and being a VM, easily recoverable (it also sucks a lot less then Nortel PABX's). Asterisk Now is a piece of cake to set up.

Re:We've seen this before.... (1)

kwark (512736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644348)

Lets see, my preference for POTS/BRI/PRI to PSTN or legacy PBX are connected with external SIP adapter (Vegastream, Patton SmartNodes, Xorcom). But PCI cards like Sangoma or any CAPI or mISDN work (I gave up on CAPI/mISDN because they lack decent echocancellers and support isn't getting any better with time), but internal cards lack a certain flexibility, though they are a lot cheaper. You can run an Asterisk platform without any Digium hardware and that is the way I prefer it.

Re:We've seen this before.... (4, Interesting)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644902)

Open Source software has a tradition of ending up this way...

Sure, just like Linux ended up "this way" and GCC ended up "this way" and Apache ended up "this way". Wow, Google could use some more of "this way". The solution for Google is obvious: open up more and let it be a true community project instead of Google's lapdog. That way, Samsung could never hope to keep up with the pace of development, even if they try it for a while. Historical note: Red Hat once forked Linux (2.4.9) and only managed to maintain the fork for a few years, even with about half the highest contributing coders on staff. Samsung could not even come close to that kind of effort, and in the end Red Hat failed to create a compelling business case for its fork, let alone a compelling case for Linux users in general. Google has already accomplished its purpose with Android. The handset market is now blown wide open and nobody will be running a tollbooth on that highway. Now the smart thing is to consolidate this victory by removing the value proposition for a fork.

So long as Google fails to let the baby grow up and be a grownup, yes, there is clear and present danger of forking. And after that, toll booths.

It would be a mistake (4, Insightful)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643628)

Google is in the same position Microsoft was a decade ago. It has money coming out its ears and not much to buy. Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business. Just like Microsoft and the xbox, Google can afford to lose money every year pretty much until it has a winner or it gets bored and finds another shiny toy. If you were selling half of all the Android phones, would you want to rock the boat?

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643736)

The part I'm missing is why Samsung and Google would want to have an antagonistic relationship? Google is paying for half a billion dollars per year worth of Samsung's software development costs. Why would you fuck with that when you own the market anyway.

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645102)

The part I'm missing is why Samsung and Google would want to have an antagonistic relationship?

Wanting someone else's money does not necessarily make you antagonistic.

Re:It would be a mistake (4, Insightful)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643834)

"Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business."

Has this not happened already with the Motorola buyout? Google can claim it's operated independently, but it's still Google's mobile hardware arm. That alone has to piss off Samsung, and at the very least, make them look at a "plan b" for software.

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643882)

I thought the Motorola buy was just to secure patents. Are the actually making hardware?

Re:It would be a mistake (3, Informative)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644020)

Motorola is continuing to make Android hardware while owned by Google, yes.

Google is claiming that they are going to let Motorola's hardware development continue independently, but there are limits to that sort of reasoning. Motorola Mobility now exists to generate a profit for Google and is beholden to Google's shareholders. Every sale Motorola takes from Samsung is now attributable to Google. Heck, if Google hadn't bought Motorola, there is a somewhat decent chance that Motorola would be out of business eventually, and Samsung would have more of the market to itself.

Google saving Motorola probably has hurt Samsung's market share outlook.

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645168)

Google is claiming that they are going to let Motorola's hardware development continue independently, but there are limits to that sort of reasoning. Motorola Mobility now exists to generate a profit for Google and is beholden to Google's shareholders.

google exists to make a profit. sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly. business units within companies quite often speak to each other concerning larger business strategies.

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645222)

google exists to make a profit. sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly. business units within companies quite often speak to each other concerning larger business strategies.

I agree. Android alone as a product does not generate profit for Google, in fact it's likely a substantial loss. Sure, Google makes up for that in ads, but they could generate more profit making the hardware too.

If there wasn't profit in hardware, or the profits are "inconsequential", why is Samsung making so much money? If Google is in the business of making money, why are they giving away their operating system, and buying a hardware maker that is treading water? Google will either have to discontinue Motorola hardware and scrap them for the patents, or actually get Motorola into shape as a moneymaking operation. If they already have the patents they wanted to get, why keep a turkey like Motorola around in it's current state?

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645342)

Sure, Google makes up for that in ads, but they could generate more profit making the hardware too.

extremely unlikely. they have no experience producing hardware of any sort, which is why they turn to partners for everything (google tv, chromebook, and android phones).

If Google is in the business of making money, why are they giving away their operating system

because their OS keeps people using google services which keeps people using google search which is where they make 99.999% of their profits.

and buying a hardware maker that is treading water? Google will either have to discontinue Motorola hardware and scrap them for the patents, or actually get Motorola into shape as a moneymaking operation. If they already have the patents they wanted to get, why keep a turkey like Motorola around in it's current state?

in all likelihood, they won't keep motorola around. expect it to be sold.

or, google can keep them around to make prototype devices, or some other niche that doesn't threaten other device makers. they can afford to do that.

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645836)

extremely unlikely. they have no experience producing hardware of any sort, which is why they turn to partners for everything (google tv, chromebook, and android phones).

They'd likely buyout a hardware company that had tons of experience. Someone like Motorola.

Oh wait.

because their OS keeps people using google services which keeps people using google search which is where they make 99.999% of their profits.

And producing their own hardware would make them even more money, and insure that there are plenty of Android devices on the market regardless of the whims of Samsung, in turn keeping people on Google services.

in all likelihood, they won't keep motorola around. expect it to be sold.

or, google can keep them around to make prototype devices, or some other niche that doesn't threaten other device makers. they can afford to do that.

Which is certainly an option, but again, like Samsung doesn't want to see their fate controlled by Google, I doubt Google wants to have their fate controlled by the device makers.

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38646114)

and insure that there are plenty of Android devices on the market regardless of the whims of Samsung

i guess you read and took the article to be something other than hogwash. in reality, samsung no where near being in a position to influence google. there are plenty of high-quality android device manufacturers waiting in the wings just drooling for samsung to back away.

I doubt Google wants to have their fate controlled by the device makers.

then why did they ever give them a piece of the pie to begin with? android can't be called anything other than a massive success for google. everyone is making $. there's no reason for anyone to be unhappy with the current arrangement. google never wanted to get into the hardware market. it's full of slim profits and stiff competition. they aren't in the market because they never wanted to be in the market.

And producing their own hardware would make them even more money,

and it's that simple eh? that's why companies like motorola, sony ericsson, dell, and others haven't been able to turn a profit selling android devices? sure google can dump oodles of money into motorola. do you think that's a guarantee of success?

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38646154)

then why did they ever give them a piece of the pie to begin with? android can't be called anything other than a massive success for google. everyone is making $. there's no reason for anyone to be unhappy with the current arrangement. google never wanted to get into the hardware market. it's full of slim profits and stiff competition

Really? Doesn't look like everyone is making slim profits.
http://www.asymco.com/2011/07/29/apple-captured-two-thirds-of-available-mobile-phone-profits-in-q2/ [asymco.com]

I bet Google would love to have some of those "slim profits" added to their bottom line.

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645366)

sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly.

That's the challenge, they have to figure out how much "potential" search revenue is worth versus "realized" hardware sales.

The problem if you're a Motorola competitor is you are now competing with Google, and anything short of Motorola closing up shop is going to be read, correctly, as an ambiguous signal from Google about their commitment to a level playing field on the platform. Are they running Motorola to make the best phones? Integrate Android with Motorola for unfair, though legal, advantage? Is there a "Chinese wall" between the Android developers and the Motorola people, to preserve the appearance of a level playing field -- like what Nokia tried and failed to do with Symbian?

These issues are completely unresolved. And it may not matter, MOTO issued an earnings warning this morning and GOOG is paying, they might just let Moto's phone business collapse in order to preserve the appearance of an open platform. But if you're a GOOG shareholder, you have to look at the price they paid for motorola and think they're nuts to have paid all that money just for IP, IP that probably wouldn't effectively defend them from lawsuits anyways.

Re:It would be a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643896)

The Motorola purchase is/was arguably just protection from patent trolls...

Re:It would be a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644972)

I don't get it. How does Samsung getting pissed off mean that

"Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business."

has already happened?

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645106)

and at the very least, make them look at a "plan b" for software.

right, since they aren't capable of taking the OSS drop of android and moving forward without google's meddling, they will write a new operating system from scratch that is better than android and maintain it and improve it all themselves. sounds likely

Re:It would be a mistake (1, Insightful)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644056)

Google hasn't made much of anything off Android. It wasted $12 billion on Motorola for ripping off iOS instead of doing cheap licensing deals.

Re:It would be a mistake (0)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645146)

Google hasn't made much of anything off Android. It wasted $12 billion on Motorola for ripping off iOS instead of doing cheap licensing deals.

You don't get it. Google stopped Apple from grabbing the entire smart phone landscape and fencing it off with toll booths. It's about who gets the advertising dollars.

Re:It would be a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38645774)

lol, that's assuming that any of the major players want to license. Microsoft does, but that's only because they have a small / nonexistent marketshare.

Either way, all platforms have copied off of each other anyway. I mean, pulldown notifications? Really? Couldn't think of any other way, as innovative as they are supposedly?

Re:It would be a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38645940)

Google hasn't made much of anything off Android. It wasted $12 billion on Motorola for ripping off iOS instead of doing cheap licensing deals.

Andoid was around before iOS you dumb fuck.

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645088)

Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business...

In which it has no competence whatsover. Google's previous complete failure to operate an online market in phone hardware is enough proof of that. Not going to happen.

Re:It would be a mistake (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645314)

Microsoft didn't have any competence in the console market either. But if you throw enough cash at a product line and manage it properly you're going to get a winner eventually. Even the Zune could have been successful if Microsoft had poured enough money into it.

Growing Pains (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643652)

Android, being a highly specialized distro of linux, has grown to the point where it is forking, the separate android forks will either thrive or collapse into one or two main lines

this is neither surprising nor distressing I do however think Google will end up under a lot of pressure to allow android market on other forks, if they fail to do so, and other marketplace providers do allow their system to be installed on any device, google will lose developers who wish to target devices like the kindle fire and the nook tablet

Re:Growing Pains (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643842)

that's how open source works. if you don't like what the original dev is doing you fork off your own project. it happens all the time. rember when xfree86 lost there minds and xorg forked it and everyone uses that now. gnome and ubuntu have lost there minds and theirs a ton of forks now but to early to tell witch one will come out in top.

Sounds unlikely (4, Insightful)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643664)

This sounds very hypothetical. Is there any indication they're actually doing this? Just because Samsung sells slightly over 50% of all Android phones, that doesn't automatically give them a huge amount of bargaining power. There are lots of other companies with competitive phones ready to grab market share if Samsung stumbles. And any attempt by Samsung to fork the OS would have a high risk of hurting their market share and giving those companies exactly the opportunity they want.

Re:Sounds unlikely (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643912)

True, atm they sell 50% of the Android phones, but they also sell 100% of the Samsung Android phones (obviously!), if they forked that, thats a huge base to aim at.
But they've also got the TV market and ad platforms, something Google's having trouble with. If they're going to fork, now would be the time to do it.

Re:Sounds unlikely (2)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644048)

The thing is, there's hardly any barrier to switching from a Samsung Android phone to a non-Samsung Android phone. Without a barrier, it doesn't function as a separate market. With time they could try to build up some barriers by tying users to Samsung-only services. But that would take time, and success would be far from certain. Users might just ignore their services and continue to use competing, cross platform ones. And if they tried to fork before then, it could easily drive users to leave for other vendors.

Re:Sounds unlikely (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38646168)

The thing is, there's hardly any barrier to switching from a Samsung Android phone to a non-Samsung Android phone. Without a barrier, it doesn't function as a separate market. With time they could try to build up some barriers by tying users to Samsung-only services. But that would take time, and success would be far from certain. Users might just ignore their services and continue to use competing, cross platform ones. And if they tried to fork before then, it could easily drive users to leave for other vendors.

HTC and Samsung are already trying to offer services exclusive to their handsets. SonyEriksson too, especially with access to SonyBMG's extensive media catalogue. Thus is the nature of competition and it is a good thing(TM) as we /.er's tend to rally against monocultures.

But it isn't working. A HTC Android phone is interchangeable with Samsung, Sony, LG, Motorola or any other due to the design of Android and the perception of the market. Consumers more readily accept that each phone is different because they aren't used to a monoculture on phones.

Now what I see coming out of the Google Motorola purchase is that Google will show other vendors how Android is meant to be done. One of the biggest reasons that Iphone fanboys deride the purchase of Motorola and try to imagine a wedge between Google and OEM's that doesn't exist is because this will cause the Android market to become more competitive and force OEM's to fix some of the biggest problems with Android phones. Google learned with the Nexus series they dont have the expertise to produce phones, so they have three choices,
1) Stop.
2) Develop the expertise.
3) Buy the expertise.
Google did number 3, which was the logical choice. What we'll see from "GoogleRola" is Android phones as Google sees them, vanilla phones with rapid updates. Basically like the Nexus series but with better customer service behind it (without a doubt, customer service was the only real flaw in the Nexus series). In turn we'll see other OEM's respond with faster updates (they have already improved in this regard).

So those who deride Android are fearful of Google's Motorola acquisition precisely because it stands to eliminate their only (and rather tired) talking points.

Re:Sounds unlikely (2)

DdJ (10790) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643990)

Why do you think there's a high risk of hurting their market share? Do you think most of the masses buying Android phones are buying them because they run Android? Do you think they care about the Android brand, or about Google services (like marketplace) specifically?

If so: you may be correct, but it's certainly not self-evidently obvious. Amazon's selling Kindle Fire systems like mad. Why couldn't Samsung do the same with a fork for smartphones?

Re:Sounds unlikely (3, Insightful)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644206)

I think it's the Android marketplace and Google-provided apps they care about. Any phone without those is at a big disadvantage. They might be able to pull it off anyway, but it would be a risky move. Amazon's position was different because 1) they didn't have any existing market share to be concerned about risking, 2) they were trying to create a completely new market segment by pricing it way below most competitive tablets, and 3) they had the whole Kindle/Amazon ecosystem in place, giving users a strong reason to prefer it to other products. Samsung doesn't have the luxury of either 1 or 3, and trying to undercut everyone else on price would make the whole business even more risky.

I'll wait until something actually happens (3, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643680)

Speculating about what might happen when you have no idea where the market is going or what the Android vendors might want is silly. Just watch as people get riled up about what they come up in their own paranoid imaginations and scream about how wrong it all is... this is gonna be a fun topic to read. :)

Re:I'll wait until something actually happens (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645440)

Pretty much what I was going to say. Gassee isn't talking about anything that *has* happened, or is *starting* to happen. He's talking about something that *might* happen. There's *some* value is discussing this, of course; just as it's valuable to consider what would happen if China invaded Taiwan. But there's a huge difference between that being a possibility worth considering, and the PLA shelling Taipei. It's worth considering what would happen if the Samsung/Google relationship went seriously sour, but if that happened it certainly wouldn't be the way Gassee envisions.

As far as I can see, Google has no reason to care very much if Samsung wants to fork Android -- otherwise why would Google open it? What Google would really care is if Samsung forked Android and moved all it's users away from Google services to a competitor like Microsoft. That's a serious concern, but it wouldn't be as easy as Gassbag^H^H^ee seems to think, for the very reason he seems to think makes it easy: Samsung's installed Android base. If an existing Samsung handset user discovers he can't use Google search, mail, calendar and the Android app store on new Samsung handsets, he'll just buy a different handset *and get the exact same user experience he's used to*. It's incredibly easy for a user to move from one Android phone vendor to another.

I'd guess the most likely way for this to go sour (other than a patent dispute) would be for Samsung to try to move its customer base away from Android and toward Windows. In marketing terms that's a bit like spitting into the wind, but it's certainly more feasible than selling New Coke while there are plenty of other vendors still selling Coke Classic.

Completely missing the point... (3, Insightful)

drdaz (994457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643728)

Amazon (like Apple) have the content people want available directly through their tablet.

Samsung copy the looks of trendy tech. They don't seem to have much leverage really...

That's some amazing non-news (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643746)

So the story is that Samsung sell so many phones/devices that they can strong arm Google now, although we do not know if they are doing this, or if they even want to do this, or what it is that they would want if they did actually do it. We don't even know exactly how many units they are selling!

But we do know that Google would have no choice but to acquiesce, otherwise Samsung could turn to Windows Phone (which would ruin Samsung's sales overnight), or they could fork the OS and make their own version - even though that would also result in their sales dropping.

This story is just some people coming up with some make believe stories, and citing each other to back them up.

Re:That's some amazing non-news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644218)

The assumption is that people buy Android phones rather than Samsung phones. I don't know what they buy but if Samsung put their own os (Bada or an android fork) on all their phones i'm sure that they would still sell like hot cakes.

mmmm, hot cakes

Re:That's some amazing non-news (2)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644320)

"But we do know that Google would have no choice but to acquiesce, otherwise Samsung could turn to Windows Phone (which would ruin Samsung's sales overnight), or they could fork the OS and make their own version - even though that would also result in their sales dropping."

Would it ruin Samsung's sales overnight? I think that's the question the article is posing. Is Samsung successful based of Android's brand, or is Android successful based off Samsung's brand? If Samsung changed their OS, would consumers even notice? Or would they just think their new phone has a different UI than their old one, but still plays Angry Birds?

I honestly don't hear many people saying they bought a Samsung because it runs Android. Most people just want a phone with email and web, and if it's not an iPhone they want, they'll go with whatever is on sale. That usually is a Samsung. Android often doesn't play into it.

Re:That's some amazing non-news (3, Interesting)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644800)

Would it ruin Samsung's sales overnight?

Based on the current sales of Windows Phone devices, I would say yes. Companies like HTC which have a foot in both camps have a larger range of Android phones, presumable because they sell more units of that platform.

I honestly don't hear many people saying they bought a Samsung because it runs Android. Most people just want a phone with email and web, and if it's not an iPhone they want, they'll go with whatever is on sale. That usually is a Samsung. Android often doesn't play into it.

I am not that is true as a general rule. I think that brand recognition goes a long way, and Android has all the buzz lately. I have had the opposite experience that you describe. As being the "tech guy" at my work, people come up to me asking about Android after reading about it in the news. As yet, nobody has asked me about Samsung (or any brand) in particular. It may be that after they have made their purchase they claim that they just wanted something to check their email, but that would downplay how much thought people do put into these decisions.

Re:That's some amazing non-news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38645208)

I honestly don't hear many people saying they bought a Samsung because it runs Android. Most people just want a phone with email and web, and if it's not an iPhone they want, they'll go with whatever is on sale. That usually is a Samsung. Android often doesn't play into it.

I know people on both sides. Most people in my circle of geeks bought a Samsung phone because it was the best Android phone for their carrier. The rest of the people I know either bought iPhones or whichever Android phone was pretty or that the salesdroid pushed.

Re:That's some amazing non-news (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645234)

I honestly don't hear many people saying they bought a Samsung because it runs Android. Most people just want a phone with email and web, and if it's not an iPhone they want, they'll go with whatever is on sale. That usually is a Samsung. Android often doesn't play into it.

i have never met a person, no matter how low-techie they are, that isn't aware that their smartphone is android (or ios). typical /. response that assumes the masses are idiots.

Re:That's some amazing non-news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644560)

Doesn't it stand to reason that part of Samsung's sales leader position comes from the implicit endorsement Google has given them by contracting Samsung to build both the Nexus S and the Galaxy Nexus?

I bet if Motorola or HTC were to build the next googlephone you'd see the sales numbers react accordingly.

Re:That's some amazing non-news (3, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38646278)

So the story is that Samsung sell so many phones/devices that they can strong arm Google now

Just like Intel sells so many processors they can strong arm Microsoft.

How does it happen (2)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643752)

Maybe because - for the most part - Samsung's phones don't *suck* the way some others' do.
I was immensely underwhelmed by the performance of my last Motorola, and even less impressed with Motorola's support of their customers (advertised the milestone as supporting flash, didn't ship an OS update that allowed it until over a *year* and in some cases not-at-all).

Samsung ping-ponged a bit on ICS for the Galaxy-S, but it looks like they'll be go for it after all.

That being said, I'd love to get my hands on a Xiaomi phone, so hopefully they'll enter the ring and add to the competition sometime soon.

Re:How does it happen (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644360)

> Maybe because - for the most part - Samsung's phones don't *suck* the way some others' do.

Um, I suspect quite a few unhappy American Galaxy S owners would be inclined to disagree. The Froyo delay and dysfunctional GPS pretty much guaranteed that my next phone wasn't going to be from Samsung.

That said, I've been pretty disappointed by Motorola (Photon), too. They got off to a good start, then completely dropped the ball ~2 months ago. They're still wringing their hands over bootloader-unlocking (yes, hacks exist... but AFAIK, they all break 4G), and the video drivers in both the Photon and Xoom forcibly render all output to 16-bit through bad gamma curves that prematurely attenuate dark shades to black (Google "black crush").

Re:How does it happen (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644518)

Samsung's phones don't suck as much as Motorola, sure. But don't discount HTC. I'd take one of their solid alloy unibody phones over a chintzy plastic Samsung any day. It's not just the physical construction either. Users seem to love Sense, but Touchwiz is universally loathed.

Re:How does it happen (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644708)

You haven touched a Droid Razr.

Motorola has redeemed themselves. that phone is a freaking piece of art.

Re:How does it happen (5, Informative)

AnttiV (1805624) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644554)

There go the mod points, but what the h*ll, I must reply to this.

"Samsung ping-ponged a bit on ICS for the Galaxy-S, but it looks like they'll be go for it after all."

No, absolutely not. If you have followed the debate enough to know about the ping-ponging, you should have followed it more than enough to read that, no Samsung is NOT bringing ICS to SGS/Tab. The proposed "Value Pack" is *nothing more* than a more bloated version of GB. Android 2.3.6 to be exact, saddled with a couple of ICS-like features (Face Unlock, new lockscreen and video editor, some others) that Sammy thinks will magically make the users happy.

It is not, I repeat, NOT based on Android 4.x in any way, and thus does not bring any sort of compatibility with Android 3.x/4.x apps at all. Which, in my opinion, would have been the primary concern with the update. Perhaps not so much with SGS, but more so with the Tab that is now largely incompatible with almost all tablet-optimized software.

Re:How does it happen (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645250)

Wouldn't it have been easier to create an Android 4 build for the old galaxys instead of redeveloping some of its new features to run on a old 2.3 build? Perhaps the hardware isn't good enough (maybe in rom storage space?) for it to be the most sensible option?

Re:How does it happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644644)

Well its Motorola. Kind of a reason nobody outside the US ever bought any of their devices, both before and after the smartphone era.

Re:How does it happen (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38646354)

Maybe because - for the most part - Samsung's phones don't *suck* the way some others' do.
I was immensely underwhelmed by the performance of my last Motorola, and even less impressed with Motorola's support of their customers (advertised the milestone as supporting flash, didn't ship an OS update that allowed it until over a *year* and in some cases not-at-all).

Moto's hardware was top notch, a bit better then Sammy's (Samsung HW also rates highly for me) but its Moto's software that let it down. Hopefully the Google acquisition will fix this. Having owned a Motorola Milestone, I found the hardware up to the task but the software sorely lacking, I'd definitely buy a current gen Milestone with a "Nexus" OS.

Google future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643760)

>Samsung is a tough, determined fighter and won't let Google dictate its future. The same can be said of Google.

Yep. Google is a tough, determined fighter and won't let Google dictate its future.

Samsung Cheats (0)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643980)

Samsung has a history of ripping off competitors and breaking various laws. They're not good at doing anything requiring bold action or independent thought.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38644008)

This is a transient phenomenon regarding a mundane hardware device who's feature set will soon be ubiquitous.
The only important commercial issue in the wireless market is the subscription fee.
Whether it's a phone or a laptop, you should always buy the best because its cost is minuscule next to the carrier subscription.
And the carriers have locked their pricing model by being able to control elected officials.
When you select a carrier, you won't get what you paid for, if you can even determine what that was.

Re:Who cares? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645152)

You mean I should buy a $1000 phone instead of a $300 phone because that cost is far exceeded by my current $180/year spend on usage?

Figures in NZD, not USD

Breaking compatibility? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644586)

If Samsung breaks compatibility, then I will not be using Samsung any longer. It's just as simple as that. Yeah, I'm just one geek among many other geeks who will agree with me. But regular users far outnumber us to the point at which we don't make much difference... sad. I like Samsung.

bet you... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644692)

they want Android closed up.

tight as a drum, tell the dirty hippies to go home.

i really hope that google tells them to stuff it in their arse and blow.

Never (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644982)

Samsung would never bite the hand that feeds it...

Jean-Louis Gassée? (1)

dido (9125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644998)

I suppose it's the same Jean-Louis Gassée? who used to work at Apple in the 1980s and created BeOS after that. It seems he got into the tech blogging world in between his work at that Silicon Valley VC firm he's in today.

Re:Jean-Louis Gassée? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38645246)

The same of the insipid and cheerless pop ballads?

I'll bide my time (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645114)

Hopefully in 6 months when I'm forced to throw away my phone and buy a new one there will be better phones on the market... and its looking like that better phone will be a samsung phone

But Google is in a different market to Samsung (4, Insightful)

ghostdoc (1235612) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645352)

Google isn't in this to 'win' and control a handset platform. They're in it to not 'lose' to Apple: they spent all that money and effort creating Android so that the mobile platform wasn't completely controlled by Apple (who could then dictate terms on advertising on that platform).

Remember, Google isn't about making money from technology. It's about making money from advertising, and it uses technology to keep anyone else from threatening its advertising revenue.

Google has made Chrome for the same reasons... to prevent Microsoft from controlling the browser platform and defaulting everyone to Bing. The fact that they also use this to drive standards adoption and technological advancement in browsers is a secondary bonus strategy.

The other nice side-effect of this strategy is that we get (more or less) open platforms and improving technology. But that's a side-effect not the main purpose, and should the mindset at Google change, or the market change, expect their attitudes to 'open and improving' to change.

Google's nightmare would be that Microsoft pays Samsung a lot of money to default all their devices to Bing. As long as they don't do that, I'm not sure Google gives a monkey's what Samsung do with their market dominance.

One Word: Bada (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38645406)

Samsung already tried to create their own OS, Bada. Its a failure. It has gained no traction. Nobody cares about it.

If they try to push their own market, they'll likely lose more than just the Market - they'll lose all google experience Application. This includes Gmail, Maps, Navigation, Translate, etc. Basically the shity that makes android cool (yeah iPhone guy, thats awesome that you have tomtom, but I didn't have pay shit for my turn by turn and its just as good when I'm in coverage).

Samsung is making a TON of fucking money selling their devices. Their bada devices, on the other hand, don't sell at all. The moment they sell an Android phone without the google experience apps - and required ordinary users to hack the device to get those apps? That phone will have shit sales, carriers will return stock, and they'll be forced to reflash all of these devices with a proper version of android, and encur the repackaging costs for doing so.

Of course they're smart. They already know this. Prediction: They're going to continue to be the #1 smart phone maker - and they're not gonna screw that up - anymore than they can with their shitty TouchWiz interface.

This is going to be interesting. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38645594)

Not for us "users", who will expirence even more fragmentation of the market and incompatibilities/lock downs/etc.

And there was so much promise. Greed gets in the way again.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?