I can't think of any examples of google being "rutheless". Effective and aggressive yes, but ruthless to me implies mean and dirty which doesn't really jibe with my take on google's actions in the past. The 800 pound gorilla didn't get huge the way Microsoft did, they got huge by providing superior and well integrated services for free in a way that endeared their users to them (like unobtrusive advertising) versus MS whose approach was more like kill competition and lock in customers, making them hate us but have no options.
I'd be more likely to believe they just simply messed up here or didn't foresee some difficulties they are having in putting together an open app store like they'd like. My guess is a combination of 1) they just didn't finish it in time and didn't realize the fragmentation that would result and b)T-Mobile and others are playing hard ball to push their proprietary/closed way of doing business and google has been forced to make some concessions. On Jan 5, 11:47 am, "Shane Isbell" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Disconnect wrote: > > > You realize they could have simply disabled the third-party-installer > > > option, right? (Or not written one to begin with.) They are far more > > > than an application vendor in this space, and if they really wanted to > > > "control the distribution channel for mobile content" they could have. > > > (Also, that "big chunk of revenue" is completely spelled out, and the > > > fingers get pointed at the carriers, not at google. Its the price of > > > getting to be part of the out of box image.) > > > They'd have had a hard time explaining disabling third party installers > > on a system they describe as "open" (See point 1 on the OHA web page > >http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html). It's bad > > enough Market uses APIs which aren't available to third party apps, but > > to 3rd party installers all together would have handed the anti-android > > camp a huge amount of ammo in terms of "This openness you speak of, and > > the dislike of the Apple App stores closed policies, how does that > > differ from your plans exactly....?". > > Yep, Google had to play the openness card. It gets them in the door, on a > "level" playing field. It's now time for them to compete and I expect this > 800 pound Gorilla to be ruthless about it (otherwise it wouldn't have > reached its substantial size). Google could have just hooked up to a carrier > billing system and been offering paid applications last October, but they > didn't. They would have been dependent on the carrier. Instead they are > slowing building out Google Checkout, slowly rolling out paid features for > the Android Market, slowly preparing to control the distribution channel, if > they can. > > Shane --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
