On Mar 4, 6:43 pm, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Karsten Silz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree that the competition is good for both sides. My point is that > > when Google bought Android, they didn't do that to save the world from > > Apple because they didn't know it was in danger yet, they just wanted > > to build a mobile OS. > > That's true, but the original goal was to create a platform that would take > the power away from the carriers and put that power in consumers' hands. > Which is what the web site selling the Nexus One was about.
Let me get this straight: Google develops Android, goes to the handset manufacturers and said: "Here's an open source smartphone OS you can use to compete with the iPhone. Doesn't cost you anything, and you can change everything you want in there: Put your own skins in, add application and services, disable functionality, replace core components. And you can ship firmware upgrades if and when you feel like it." Then Google went to the carriers and told them the same thing. And the handset guys like it, but the carriers love it. Now how is that "taking power away from the operators"? This ship has long sailed - carriers are in charge. Ironically, the only company that stood up to the carriers is Apple - no carrier crapware on the phone, no carrier customizations, no carrier-driven firmware distribution. That's one of the reasons they initially could only sign few carriers - the carriers didn't accept these kind of restrictions. And I'm sure Apple also wanted to have more money than the other guys, too. :-) Vic Gundotra would probably say that this is worse and like 1984 and a future he doesn't want, but as it stands today, you gotta pick your dictator: Apple or "your carrier + your handset manufacturer". Even if we assume that the carrier-empowerment that is Android can be rolled back - Nexus One was a flawed attempt at that. Google simply doesn't have any experience selling consumer electronics to end users, and it showed: no phone support line, no stores where people can see and touch the phone, and the result was predictable. Google usually says that the market will sort this out, so that manufacturers / carriers with slow or no firmware upgrades and customization that makes the phones worse will be punished by the consumer. The problems with that argument are numerous: In U.S. and Western Europe, there is no "free market" in which buyers and sellers freely exchange smartphones - carriers dictate which smartphones consumers buy through subsidies and promotion. Most consumers don't (and shouldn't) know and care about firmware upgrades, so they don't. Finally, consumers sometimes can't change carriers (bad coverage by the other carriers in their location) or don't because of early termination fees / fees for transferring their mobile phone number / fear of losing their mobile phone number and their contacts / switching costs. Yes, this is a bad situation, but carriers are in the driver's seat here, and I don't think it'll change anytime soon. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
