hmm what would be a 'must have?' for iOS? in so far as proffit margin goes
google had to pay through the noes in a recent privacy battle.
MS has been eeting at Android proffits by taking compitors to
courthttp://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-vs-android/8529and
forbes
take on
ithttp://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/21/microsoft-v-motorola-android-case-and-why-courts-need-reforming/
Googles Android isn't having thto compete with just apple(and iOS) then
it's also having to beet MS and there considerable legal and financial
rescources (and dodgy business practices) I agree that google could gain
some benifit having alies here. Samsung is just a good a choice as any,
nokia could also be plausible-It's my understanding that as of Icecream
sandwitch forward google has some quality assurancences carriers and
manufacturers are to meet--
Only wifi-thinking a bit to small-- maybe someone can find it- I thought
there was some work being done by HP to have the internet everywhere.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote:
Google is slashing 20% of Moto Mobility:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/13/us-motorolamobility-jobs-idUSBRE87C07F20120813
.. which brings up the question: Will Google join Apple as a handset
manufacturer?
The revenue and profit story of iOS and Android are all over the map, with
Android clearly ahead in number of units, but with Google lagging in
profits.
The idea with Moto, I think, was to put Google in the same place as Apple:
controlling a larger part of The Mobility Triangle: handset mfgr, OS
provider, mobile carrier. Indeed, this triangle has made certain aspects
of Android difficult, in particular stabilizing the OS and providing timely
OS/firmware updates.
When I bought my last phone, I decided to stick with iPhone, partially due
to inertia, and partly due to must have apps that are still not on
Android. But also partly because of the triangle: who's going to update
the phone? .. who's in charge here?!
My Verizon iPhone purchase was a bit weird. They kept saying that feature
X or network Y was under Apple's control and Apple'd manage it. For
example, I can't exchange my phone directly with Vzn. Instead I send it to
Apple for a swap. And Apple was in complete control of Vzn's inventory.
This is not to say one is better/worse as much as to marvel at the
difference Apple has forced on the carriers. Apple is clearly 66 2/3%
of the triangle .. closer to 90%.
So Google and MM seemed an attempt to have their model be similar, right?
But hold it! They had a success disaster with Samsung. Samsung has such
a winner on their hands that they caught everyone by surprise, even Google.
I think Google should at least explore a much closer relationship with
Samsung, in particular in standardizing the OS updates and HW APIs,
something they wanted with Moto.
In the mean time, Apple appears to be happy making more money while having
a smaller percent of the OS and handset market. And the carriers are
becoming less and less important in the equation entirely.
So I think Apple should buy TMobile and have 100%, and Google has to
decide how big a percent the'd like, and how to achieve it. Moto doesn't
seem to have done the trick.
And both A and G would like to simply marginalize the carriers completely
.. maybe by wifi-default phones and in-house bluetooth to home phones. I
think G has the edge here.
Who'da thought!?
-- Owen
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
