Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR)
The Harvard Business Review thinks
that Google is in trouble because handset vendors can change the
default search engine on Android phones. "What's the endgame here?
Well, with both handset manufacturers and networks increasingly becoming
commoditized, each are desperate to find new sources of revenue. Between
them, the most valuable thing they have is control over what goes on the
phone right before it reaches the customer: what apps, and what
search. This is exactly what Google needs to control as the future shifts
to the mobile web."
(Log in to post comments)
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 18, 2010 17:20 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]
well considering apple hasn't even taken google off the iphone, i doubt there is much here to worry about
google will remain the default search engine because it is not only synonymous with search, but because it is still the best
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 19, 2010 9:22 UTC (Fri) by dsas (subscriber, #58356) [Link]
Google is the default iPhone search engine because they pay apple to be, reportedly somewhere around 100 million dollars a year.
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 18, 2010 17:53 UTC (Thu) by paivakil (guest, #31804) [Link]
A handset vendor may attempt to change the default search engine, but it is not possibleeasy to lock down the search engine or any other app the way it happens in other mobile OSes which offer such a "feature". .
In face fo such an attempt at lockdown, the user (or any user on behalf Googel) can ask for the code and launch a modified version of the phone's firmware.
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 18, 2010 17:58 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Right... and if you have no way to install the modified firmware on your phone?
Besides, the 0.5% of geeks who would want to install an alternative firmware
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 19, 2010 13:20 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] That is a browser configuration option (mandated by some EU ruling or other, IIRC); in the worst case you get a browser you like (there are several alternatives around). No firmware reflashing involved at all.
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 18, 2010 18:13 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
"the user (or any user on behalf Googel) can ask for the code and launch a modified version of the phone's firmware."
Would this be the kernel, which is GPLv2 and requires giving source, or the rest of the stack, which is Apache and comes with no such downstream requirement (this would be the freedom that BSD advocates like so much).
(http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/why-google-cho... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_... amongst many other places for more reading)
Of course, there's also the Tivoization that is not prevented by the GPLv2, only GPLv3 (or, because of "or later", GPLv2+).
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 18, 2010 18:13 UTC (Thu) by kov (subscriber, #7423) [Link] I don't see why that surprises the author of the article. Google's built a tradition of keeping market share by rocking rather than locking in many of its products (although there are signs of change in some fronts), and, well, being able to customize stuff and select your provider is at the heart of Free Software/Open Source, so I'm pretty sure that was intentional, and a way to build trust for the platform.
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 25, 2010 21:01 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Indeed! Seriously, if someone doesn't want to use Google's search engine and other services - Google could simply lock them out of their android marketplace. Such a phone wouldn't be very interesting, wouldn't it? ;-)
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 18, 2010 18:30 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
As long as everyone's android app uses google to serve ads, google realyl couldn't care less what the default search provider is.
And don't forget the tie-ins with google's other services -- mail, chat, etc etc etc, all of these result in ad impressions too; arguably far more than just 'search' would provide.
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 18, 2010 19:32 UTC (Thu) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link]
Which is the bigger point -- the article gets that Google is a service provider, and only manufactures devices for the sake of having service platforms (Xerox-esque), but forgets that search, the flagship product, is by no means the most profitable. It's a gateway, one among many.
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 18, 2010 20:55 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] And don't forget the tie-ins with google's other services -- mail, chat, etc etc etc, all of these result in ad impressions too AFAICT Google Mail, Talk etc. on Android don't display ads.
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 18, 2010 21:38 UTC (Thu) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
Yeah, but when you buy an Android phone you are required to open a Gmail account.(I was at least) People will use the Gmail account on their phone and through a desktop browser, so now they are locked into the "Google Apps" system.
Each phone is one more person converted to a Gmail user and when the user checks their mail on a normal computer then are served ads.
I realize that you can use other email accounts, but Gmail is a decent product and many people will "just use it" since it is highly integrated into the phone.
Once people get conformable with android as a phone it will open the door to some Linux/Google desktop which looks nothing like the Linux desktops which us geeks know and love(GNU/Linux/(Fedora|Ubuntu|Suse|etc)).
The Linux kernel will still benefit as a whole by a Linux/Google desktop by gaining hardware driver support even if "we" hate linux/Google desktop. Who knows maybe it will kick @ss, that is just a bonus. The average person knows Google brand and are not scared is it.
Boy did I drift off topic fast, sorry!
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 18, 2010 21:56 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Each phone is one more person converted to a Gmail user and when the user checks their mail on a normal computer then are served ads. I use an Android phone but I seldom if ever use the browser-based Gmail. (I have only mail from selected senders forwarded to my phone from my regular mail account.) Nor do I use the browser-based Google Talk – on the desktop I use Pidgin to connect to the Google Talk server, and again I get to see no ads. Having said that, I agree with what you say about the ads on the »normal computer« but I don't really mind them. To me, the degree of integration, automatic sync etc. between Android and the Google browser apps like Mail and Calendar is certainly worth looking at a few ads every so often (or, more likely, glancing over them and ignoring them), usually when I deal with calendar events, which IMHO is a lot nicer in the browser than on the phone.
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 18, 2010 23:29 UTC (Thu) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
It is a probability game. Plus, LWN users are not the Norm.
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 18, 2010 23:45 UTC (Thu) by swetland (subscriber, #63414) [Link]
Android as of Eclair (2.0), iirc, does not require account creation at activation -- you can just press the skip button. You do need to create or login to a Google account to use gmail, etc -- and will be prompted when you first run such an app -- but that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 19, 2010 13:31 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
You do need a Google account for a number of mundane uses, including installing software from their official repository and using the calendar.
I can somewhat understand the rationale behind the former, although I have never been asked to create an account with Debian to use apt-get, but the latter is just plain madness.
Calendar Posted Nov 19, 2010 19:08 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
The reason the Android calendar requires a Google account is that it doesn't store any of its data on the phone; it's all stored in Google Calendar. It may seem a mad choice to someone who wouldn't otherwise use Google Calendar, but when you're implementing something that is intended to sync with Google Calendar anyway, it's a reasonable way to skip a lot of on-phone complexity.
Calendar Posted Nov 21, 2010 23:17 UTC (Sun) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Could what you describe actually be true? If the phone finds itself without a data connection, would reminders fail to run? Would I be unable to enter new appointments? I doubt it somehow, although I haven't used that particular feature myself because I am not interested in hosting my data elsewhere for a number of reasons.
Calendar works without Google account. Posted Nov 22, 2010 3:29 UTC (Mon) by skierpage (guest, #70911) [Link]
The calendar works without a Google account, and obviously it stores info locally on the phone.
However, my HTC Evo calendar app has no import/export capability at all, not iCal, vcs, or CSV files, nor Event > Send to Bluetooth device. So if you have an existing calendar, the easiest way to get it onto your phone is create a Google account, import your existing calendar into http://calendar.google.com (which *can* import iCal and Outlook CSV files), then trigger sync with the phone. Then you realize how great it is to edit your calendar from phone and desktop, then you share calendars with your partner, then you add the meta-calendar of birthdays from your GMail Contacts, and before you know it instead of deleting your Google account after the initial sync as you intended, you've been assimilated. Resistance is futile.
I believe Google Calendar can instead sync with Microsoft Exchange using ActiveSync Exchange, and there are third-party import/export and sync apps (such as Ics Bot) in the Android Market... but Android Market requires a Google account!
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 19, 2010 0:33 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"The Linux kernel will still benefit as a whole by a Linux/Google desktop by gaining hardware driver support"
Really? Exactly how many Free SoC GPU drivers did we get from android? Android runs on pretty much all available SoC GPUs, and there are - precisely - zero free drivers available for any of them.
And those Free drivers that android has produced mostly live in a separate tree and the general opinion is that they aren't of high enough quality to go into mainline.
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 19, 2010 8:02 UTC (Fri) by swetland (subscriber, #63414) [Link]
We have three GPU vendors releasing the kernel side (resource and queue management) as GPLv2. That, to my mind, is some nice progress. Would it be nicer if the userspace side were also open source? Certainly. Is that likely to happen at this point in time, given the US patent system being what it is, etc? Seems like a stretch. How many fully open source hw OpenGL driver stacks exist for desktop Linux?
Regarding the assorted other SoC and peripheral drivers that have resulted from 5 years of Android, well, those drivers are all GPLv2 and people can do whatever they like with 'em. Even rewrite 'em if they don't like them the way they are. I know the folks who had been doing Linux ports to Qualcomm based HTC devices, for example, have found some value there.
It's not *search* that matters, it's *ads* Posted Nov 19, 2010 14:31 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"That, to my mind, is some nice progress."
_Very_ little. If anything it's proof of how much these companies just don't get it.
"How many fully open source hw OpenGL driver stacks exist for desktop Linux?"
Well the idea is that there should be one stack which drivers just have to plug in to. This is partly the idea of Gallium3D. A vendor can release a Gallium3D driver, get support for all the Gallium state trackers and not have to reveal any of the proprietary details of how they implement the higher layers.
But currently we have full support for intel GPUs and quite good support for most radeons.
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 18, 2010 19:09 UTC (Thu) by doink (guest, #65626) [Link]
Is this implying that the most important stuff that ends up on a cell phone/computer is the crapware that comes installed from the manufacturer?
I find that hard to believe.
one man's "crap"... Posted Nov 18, 2010 20:18 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] ReadWriteWeb: Pre-loaded mobile applications - the so-called "junk" apps (aka "crapware") that come pre-installed on mobile handsets - aren't as despised as you might think.
one man's "crap"... Posted Nov 18, 2010 20:45 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link]
It's as if the author of that article and the people who answered the poll are speaking two different languages.
"Only 35% said they did not use pre-loaded apps" That doesn't mean they throught the pre-installed apps are "bloated", it means that they only use their phone to make phone calls. Anyway, most people have no way of telling the difference between stock Android apps and stuff that was added by their wireless provider so the poll is not very meaningful in that sense.
The study shows that less than 5% jail break their phones so the pre-installed software matters a lot.
I also think most people probably are not comfortable installing new apps. I don't have a smart phone anymore but I tried installing software on a blackberry and it was a royal pain. That was 3 years ago so probably it's better now.
To me the study shows that people care about their software but they don't know an easy way to fix it if it's not installed correctly to begin with. Often there is no easy fix. Wireless providers have been known to deliberately brick your phone if you try change the software.
built-in apps and market apps Posted Nov 22, 2010 3:51 UTC (Mon) by skierpage (guest, #70911) [Link]
Both the phone manufacturer and the wireless provider not only add apps, they replace apps. E.g. our HTC Evo and LG Optimus S both run Froyo 2.2 and both have a "Clock" app, but they are unrelated apps with different features, e.g. one has a countdown timer, the other doesn't; they have different Music and Contacts apps as well.
Installing new apps is very easy. The problems lie in the dozens of available apps for every search term, and uncertainty from the Android permission model (does a stopwatch program need to "directly call phone numbers", have "full Internet access", and "record audio, take pictures"?); but those are better problems to have than few apps and no security model.
I would like all of Google's Android apps to be available and heavily featured in the Android Market, both to make it easy to retreat from a carrier's customized skinned phone to the default apps without having to root or re-image, and to set a high bar for third-party apps.
TFA applies old thinking to a new strategy Posted Nov 18, 2010 21:43 UTC (Thu) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
Google never set out to 'win' the smartphone OS wars. If it did, it would offer a proprietary OS like iOS or Blackberry or Windows Phone. Creating such a proprietary OS costs a lot of money and time. The upside is you can make a lot of money directly from the OS.
Google didn't do that. Instead, they did the much cheaper and faster thing and forked an existing open source OS. Google's goal isn't to monopolize the OS market, it's to keep it open. Google's nightmare is iOS or Windows Phone being run on all mobile devices, giving one vendor too much power. That power could be used to stifle companies that would otherwise do well, like Google.
Instead, Android or an Android-like OS will run everywhere. Will Google make money off of each one? No. Will all have Google as the default search and app provider? No. But, relatively easily, Google has forced the mobile OS market to remain unmonopolized.
TFA misses all that. But it also misses out on the catch, which is that Google is trying to retain a large degree of power, even in such conditions. It's doing that by developing Android behind closed doors. That forces vendors to work with it, if they want to release devices with the new OS version once it launches. That would come with a deal to keep Google search and apps on the device. Otherwise, they are free to use old versions and replace Google search and apps. But using a year-old OS will generally mean you are not making a premium product - not something to compete with Apple's. An old OS might be good enough for cheap, simple products.
That's the real strategy here - make the OS free for most devices, while still retaining control over the premium ones. That strategy is actually more similar to Apple than Microsoft - Apple makes a lot of money from the premium segment of the market. Google's Android strategy is similar in that money will be made off of premium products, where Google retains full control, with the added twist of not controlling low-end products, which ensures that the technology gains marketshare. It's as if Apple kept making money off of Macs, but also released OS X for free for low-end PCs, as a tactic to prevent Microsoft's monopolization of that market.
So there is something very interesting and novel in Google's strategy. I think TFA misses it entirely.
Exemplifies what is wrong with HBR, US MBA, technology {thinking,understanding} Posted Nov 18, 2010 22:09 UTC (Thu) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]
This article, and the 'oh-right' comments in the HBR clearly exemplify what is wrong with most American Pointy-Haired MBA thinking, concentrate on control and product differentiation rather than total market size and quality to monetize. See how that worked out for Detroit.
Ignore the non-US market where choice and consumer protection are often stronger.
Ignore technology and law/licence eg GPL.
Fact: (1) to take google.com off a phone you would have to disable or filter all internet access, good luck with selling cripple phones; (2) all Android phones will quickly be jail broken, then all apps witll have the open APIs.
Opinion: Trying to build walled gardens is an expensive waste of time, you need more engineers and fewer MBAs and Lawyers.
Exemplifies what is wrong with HBR, US MBA, technology {thinking,understanding} Posted Nov 19, 2010 9:19 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
So right. It depises me to no end that those people are so anally fixed with that fantasy that they control their customers, and that impulse to shove stuff down their throats.
Exemplifies what is wrong with HBR, US MBA, technology {thinking,understanding} Posted Nov 19, 2010 17:34 UTC (Fri) by Doogie (guest, #59626) [Link]
Anally fixated? Shove stuff down their throats? Did I walk into the wrong chat room by accident? :)
Exemplifies what is wrong with HBR, US MBA, technology {thinking,understanding} Posted Nov 22, 2010 15:38 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
I apologize for the language. I should have prepended a "Not Safe for Work" notice. But when I said it depises me, I meant it quite literally.
Again, apologies.
Exemplifies what is wrong with HBR, US MBA, technology {thinking,understanding} Posted Nov 21, 2010 22:10 UTC (Sun) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
> This article, and the 'oh-right' comments in the HBR clearly exemplify
> what is wrong with most American Pointy-Haired MBA thinking, concentrate > on control and product differentiation rather than total market size and > quality to monetize. See how that worked out for Detroit.
This is the real point, I think, to draw from this article. The HBR is 20 years behind - locking customers in was the new 'clever' business model that was old before the dot-com bubble - and it clearly thinks that preserving this business model is the only way to make money. Google is doing more to change the USA by inventing new business models that work than anything else that I can see.
The other thing that they don't get is that there's basically no point in trying anyway. Google is already basically unassailable in search: no-one's going to be able to do to Google what Google did to the search engine wars of the 1990s. And it's not just about search - there's Google calendar, Google mail, Google docs, Google maps, Google earth, Google news, Google Translate, Google ... - Google is a household word and brand that covers a myriad of uses. Even if your vendor managed to purge their Android phone of references to Google, people will pull up their browser and log into Gmail with it anyway, or will download the Gmail app from the app store. People search with Google and read Gmail on iPhones! That's how much you cannot lock people in - or, more precisely, lock people out of using Google.
This needs a photo of the title with "Business Fail" on it.
Have fun,
Paul
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 20, 2010 1:23 UTC (Sat) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> What's the endgame here? Well, with both handset manufacturers and
> networks increasingly becoming commoditized, each are desperate to find > new sources of revenue. Between them, the most valuable thing they have is > control over what goes on the phone right before it reaches the customer: > what apps, and what search. This is exactly what Google needs to control > as the future shifts to the mobile web.
Android is open core. The basic system is GPLv2 and BSD licensed, but Google supplies a lot of the most impressive apps. For example, the Google Maps application, the GMail application, and others are proprietary. Any handset manufacturer that wants to give Google the finger will not be able to ship these applications, which is a major competitive disadvantage-- at least if you're creating a phone.
Also, even for the parts of Android that are completely open source, getting help from the original authors is valuable. It's almost always in the handset manufacturers' interest to work closely with Google so that they get technical assistance with any problems they might encounter and are aware of what Google's roadmap is for new releases, etc.
The Android App Store itself is run by Google. Sure, some network or handset manufacturer could try to compete with them, but that's not easy. Google has some of the top engineering talent in the world. And even a superior app store that has no apps (i.e. market share) will not be very attractive to customers.
In the end, I think that the handset manufacturers "control" will boil down to adding more lame shovelware, like the stuff that all Windows PCs come preloaded with these days.
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 20, 2010 14:55 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
I have an Android phone but I've never used the Google Map app. I installed an OpenStreetMap app and never looked back. I'm now a little bit intrigued, what exactly does the Google one do that's impressive?
(I must admit that if it's genuinely impressive I will be torn, maybe I should switch to use the Google map despite the poorer quality data just to find out)
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 21, 2010 6:28 UTC (Sun) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
I never used OpenStreetMap, so I'm not sure how it stacks up against Google Maps. In general, Google Maps is a pretty well-polished program. Obviously, there's the whole search for nearby stuff thing that everyone uses. However, there are some other interesting ones. For example, using the data they Google gets back from millions of android phones, Google Maps can draw a pretty accurate traffic overlay on the map.
Also, there is the related Google Navigation app, which has completely replaced GPS devices for me.
I used to work in the GPS industry, and I can say that what Google has done in this area is very impressive. They've produced top-notch GPS software, built their own maps of the local roads (at least in the United States), and their user interface is light-years better than anything Garmin or Tom Tom ever rolled out.
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 21, 2010 14:52 UTC (Sun) by gps (subscriber, #45638) [Link]
Where do you live that openstreetmap has better data?
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 22, 2010 14:50 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Southampton, UK. But frankly the same has been true in other parts of the UK that I visit, where I make more use of a map (after all I already know where my local railway station is, the inability of certain map services to put it in the right place is a joke, but not actually an inconvenience)
I'm told Google maps is great in a car. I don't drive (I can, but I don't) so I wouldn't know. On foot the OSM data is very good. Judging from a fellow walker's device, Google believes the Forest is largely empty, while OSM's volunteers have helpfully included the many criss-crossing footpaths and whether they are legally bridleways (which if you don't ride a horse means: probably muddy).
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 21, 2010 22:14 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I just downloaded the openstreetmap app for my iphone (company supplied), and while it looks like a good map to show what's around me, I don't see any way to search for addresses (or anything else), have it generate driving directions, etc that google maps can do.
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 21, 2010 23:38 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
What app did you install? I've been struggling to like OSMAnd but it's feels so slow and bloaty compared to Google Maps. How many clicks should it require to show a map of my current location?
Santa Cruz, CA has pretty awesome OSM coverage, much better than Google Maps in many areas. Not sure who the mappers are but they've been doing a great job.
Did Google Arm Its Own Enemies With Android? (HBR) Posted Nov 22, 2010 15:00 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Yes, I use OsmAnd. I didn't find "show location" too hard, it's in the Android context menu. There is definitely something not quite right somewhere in the OsmAnd UI, for example in routing, but if that's the worst thing I'm missing by not using Google Maps I think I can live with it until someone is motivated to fix it.
|
|||||||||||||