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 court<http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-vs-android/8529>and forbes take on it<http://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 <[email protected]> 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
