Is Android unstoppable?

Unwired ^ | 03 Aug 10 | Vlad Bobleanta

[SmokingJoe]

It has been ordered that personal attacks will not be tolerated on these tech threads anymore.

Tell that to your fellow Applebots. They are the Ayatoullahs of personal attcks. They have been doing that on here for years.

“Many can remember before that, and the fact that they are new to the phone market.”

The Apple Newton (a consumer product) was released over 20 years ago, long before Google was even founded.
“The Newton platform was an early personal digital assistant (PDA) hardware/software and the first tablet platform developed by Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.), the second platform being iOS (previously named iPhone OS), used in the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Development of the Newton platform started in 1987 and officially ended on February 27, 1998”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton

“The company Google bought had a LOT of experience in just that.”

That's like saying Microsoft got plenty of OS experience when they hired David Cutler from DEC, just like lots of other firms before that hire people for their expereince in one field or the other. It doesn't change one whit the fact that Google had never written an OS before

“Of course this doesn't count that Google is famous for having made MASSIVE contributions to Linux.”

Plenty of programmers all over the world make contributions to Linux. So what?

“Google has many consumer software services, several of which are leveraged by Android.”

Where is their consumer hardware prpoduct before the Nexus One at?

“You mean together Motorola, HTC, LG, Samsung and others have managed.”

I mean Android has managed to clobber Apple in smartphone market share in just 2 years.

“For good reason: they weren't very good”

They WERE pretty good actually, and some versions had good market share in China and other Asian countries.

“They were also fragmented, as the Linux marketshare was made up of several different efforts. “,/i>

Android is merely another “fragmentation” of a version of mobile Linux.

“That was expected. “

Yeah?

“One new phone maker on one carrier in the US selling only premium smartphones is not going to topple the established #1 maker across all carriers and price ranges in the US smartphone market that quickly.”,/i>

Versions of mobile Linux had plenty of careers, plenty of hardware makers, and plenty of support from firms like TI and Qlacom and still goit easily clobbered bny the iPhone..untill Android came up.

“16 months. That is “quite a bit” of time for the iPhone to you”

That is 16 months headstart the iPhone had over Android, onl for Android to swftly ctacvh up to then overtake the IPhone..and Android is still growing at a staggering 886% annually, even after overtaking the iPhone.

[antiRepublicrat]

They come out with an OS, with no prior consumer product or OS ever

That claim thoroughly destroyed on the other thread.

Google buy their server hardware from other hardware makers like Dell, HP etc.

Nope. Google designs and builds their own servers. You really are having a problem with facts lately.

Each server has its own 12v battery instead of a rack sharing an UPS. The PSU is 12v-only (no 5v) for higher efficiency, so naturally the motherboard is a custom design that accepts only 12v input. The PSU (which sits at the front of the rack), battery and hard drives are attached with Velcro for quick replacement. Google gets pluck-and-chuck PSU replacement without fancy and expensive levers, latches, connectors and housings. As you see, they route a standard power cable to the front and plug it into the PSU.

Does that look like a standard HP or Dell design to you? Google's design is less expensive and FAR more energy efficient than their products.

According to Canalys, Android is ahead by 3.6% worldwide

That's edging ahead. Clobber may happen this quarter. We'll have to wait.

Development of the Newton platform started in 1987

And the first Newton as we know it wasn't made until 1993. What was first conceived in 1987 had almost no relation to what finally got produced.

Who has a problem with facts here?

With this comment, plus the comment about Google buying its servers from Dell and HP, plus the comment about Google having no OS experience, I'd have to say you.

[antiRepublicrat]

Tell that to your fellow Applebots.

That's your job if you see it. I'm telling you. Take responsibility for your own abuse, don't deflect to others.

The Apple Newton

Destroyed on the other thread.

That's like saying Microsoft got plenty of OS experience when they hired David Cutler from DEC

Google BOUGHT an entire company that had been working on phone software for two years, and had extensive experience prior to that. The Microsoft equivalent would have been if Microsoft bought DEC, produced a VMS variant, and you were here claiming Microsoft had no experience with VMS.

Basic logic: By buying a company with extensive experience in a field, your company instantly gains that experience. Duh. That's the main reason tech companies buy other tech companies.

Plenty of programmers all over the world make contributions to Linux.

Linux operating system development experience. And don't even equate Google's massive contributions to Linux (most of which haven't been released) with "plenty of programmers all over the world."

Where is their consumer hardware prpoduct before the Nexus One at?

You stated consumer products.

I mean Android has managed to clobber Apple in smartphone market share in just 2 years.

What's this Android? Can I go into a store and buy an Android? Or do I buy any one of dozens of phones from Moto, HTC, LG, Samsung, and others?

Android is merely another “fragmentation” of a version of mobile Linux.

And it is the ONLY one with most of the powerhouses of the cell phone industry behind it. Quite different than each manufactuer fiddling with its own implementation.

That is 16 months headstart the iPhone had over Android, onl for Android to swftly ctacvh up to then overtake the IPhone

Your biased choice of words still shows. 16 months is a LOOOOONG time for the iPhone to build its sales. 2 years is a SHOOOORT time for android devices to build their sales.

[SmokingJoe]

That claim thoroughly destroyed on the other thread.

That fact as strong as ever, after I had thoroughly taken apart your claims to the contrary in this and other threads.
Apple = in the consumer electronics business for over 30 years, long before Google was even founded, and when the founders of Google were in Kindergarten. Yet Google gets into the smartphone OS business, and proceeds to clobber Apple in just 2 short years, ..and they Androids is still growing at a staggering 886% annually. OUCH!

[SmokingJoe]

That's your job if you see it. I'm telling you. Take responsibility for your own abuse, don't deflect to others.

When Applebots abuse(like they have been doing on FR for years), they are gonna get it right back.

“Destroyed on the other thread.”

Apple Newton, an Apple consumer electronics product that was launched when Google’s founders were still in high school, developed and sold by Apple for over 10 years, and in a way, a precursor to the iPhone, and still Google came to the market, with ZERO experience in any consumer electronics product, and clobber Apple in market share in just 2 years.
And, Android is still growing at 886%. You ain't seen nothing yet.

[SmokingJoe]

Google BOUGHT an entire company that had been working on phone software for two years,

So what?
Microsoft hired David Cutler and his crew from DEC, to come wrirte NT for Microsoft. That doesn't in the least change the fact that NT is, and remains a Microsoft product.
Not to mention, there have been plenty of mobile Linux OS’s out there, yet none of them took off till Android came along. Android has been on the market for just 2 years, and they have already clobbered Apple's market share worldwide, and taken out both Apple and RIM in US market share. Like I said before, its virtually unheard of in the anals of operating system history, desktop or smatrtphone.
In close to 4 years of business, the iPhone is yet to even get close to RIM in market share, let alone overtake RIM. Android did it just 2 years.

[SmokingJoe]

That's edging ahead. Clobber may happen this quarter. We'll have to wait”,/i>

Naaaah.
That a clobbering alright.
3.6% ahead, when Apple only has a market share of just 13.5%, means Google’s market share is ahead of Apple's by a massive 26%. That's not “edging ahead”. That's a clobbering!

“And the first Newton as we know it wasn't made until 1993. What was first conceived in 1987 had almost no relation to what finally got produced”,/i>

Again, from Wiki:
“The Newton platform was an early personal digital assistant (PDA) hardware/software and the first tablet platform developed by Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.), the second platform being iOS (previously named iPhone OS), used in the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. Development of the Newton platform started in 1987 and officially ended on February 27, 1998”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton

[SmokingJoe]

Basic logic: By buying a company with extensive experience in a field, your company instantly gains that experience

You kinda like how Apple got the entire iPod idea (the precursor to the iPhone), from a guy named Tony Fadell, who was the real father of the iPod, by employing Tony Fadell?
And how said Tony Fadell then partnered with a company called PortalPlayer who had been working on their own MP3 player to design the software for the new Apple player?
http://inventors.about.com/od/istartinventions/a/iPod.htm

If you are claimg that Google employed people with OS exoreince from other firms so therefore Anroid was not really developed by Google, what do you call Apple employing others to develop the OS for their iPod then?

[antiRepublicrat]

Far too much fragmentation. Answering all here:

When Applebots abuse

The continued abuse here is yours.

That doesn't in the least change the fact that NT is, and remains a Microsoft product.

Google did even one better than MS did with Cutler. Google bought the whole company, existing OS development and all. No amount of your weaseling can erase the fact that Google had plenty of mobile OS experience on board for Android. What Google didn't have internally, it bought.

In close to 4 years of business, the iPhone is yet to even get close to RIM in market share, let alone overtake RIM. Android did it just 2 years.

An honest way of stating the iPhone's span of availability would be just over three years, given that it was released in the middle of 2007, and it is now the middle of 2010.

Guess what, the Android OS has been in development for about seven years, since 2003. The iPhone as we know it has been in development for four or five years, starting sometime during the Moto ROKR fiasco. Both design teams of course leveraged prior experience (Google from Orange, Danger and WebTV, and Apple from Apple).

of the Newton platform started in 1987 and officially ended on February 27, 1998

Notice your selective quoting. The Newton Project (as opposed to any actual Newton device) started over 20 years ago as a PARC-like think tank exercise to replace the Macintosh with a tablet. The project languished in Dilbert world for several years, until the the point men left Apple in disgust to found Be. The design of the Newton as the device we know, and as more than a think-tank exercise at Apple, began in 1990. Even then the target was much higher-end than the actual Newton released, and was based on different software and hardware. The software development of the Newton as we know it actually occurred in 1992-1993.

No amount of your weaseling can make your incorrect statement about the Newton correct.

You kinda like how Apple got the entire iPod idea (the precursor to the iPhone), from a guy named Tony Fadell, who was the real father of the iPod, by employing Tony Fadell?

Not quite. Fadell was an outside contractor responsible for part of the iPod project, and Apple later licensed software from PortalPlayer. Google BOUGHT the whole company to quickly get into the mobile phone business. Everything became the property of Google.

A direct comparison is Apple. Apple had little or no in-house expertise in the low-power chip design business anymore (the iPod and iPhone chips were simply sourced), so they bought the low-power chip design firm P.A. Semi two years ago. Thus it is no surprise to see the latest Apple mobile products ship with a very powerful Apple-designed chip. Apple also recently bought Intrinsity, which specialized in high-performance, low-power ARM designs. Should I be surprised when the results of this buy up the performance and lengthen the battery life of upcoming Apple devices?

Google having bought a smart phone systems software company five years ago, it is no surprise to see Google produce Android. Get it? It's not some underdog miracle of development on Google's part. It's the reality of the high-tech industry.

If you are claimg that Google employed people with OS exoreince from other firms so therefore Anroid was not really developed by Google, what do you call Apple employing others to develop the OS for their iPod then?

You can't have it both ways. You claimed Google didn't have the OS expertise. I destroyed that false claim by showing you where Google got years of OS expertise. Android was partially developed before the Google purchase, and finished within Google after the purchase by those very same people who started development (plus extra Google engineers, of course).

[silence]

I take it by this silence that, unlike your continued defense of other false claims, you choose not to defend your false claim that Google doesn't design and make servers, instead buying them from the likes of HP and Dell.

[antiRepublicrat]

Others coming to mind:

Microsoft didn't have experience in diagramming software. Bought Visio, ta-da, instant diagramming software expertise, arguably the best on the market.

Adobe didn't have experience or a product in page layout. Bought Aldus, ta-da, instant page layout expertise. Adobe used that expertise to "Adobeize" PageMaker and add some features, then turned it towards making the ultimate page layout program, InDesign (turns out PageMaker was fundamentally broken and couldn't be easily made to fully compete with Quark).

Google had little experience in mobile advertising. Bought AdMob, ta-da, instant mobile advertising expertise. Same for Apple buying Quattro.

The list goes on and on. Companies have some main choices when they want to get into a new business.

• They can go it all alone, but that means a long time to market as they gain the expertise, develop technologies and build products from scratch. This is how you portrayed Google's production of the Android OS.
• They can license the technology, but then they're beholden to another company or license, and don't gain instant expertise for further development. This is how Microsoft got into the browser business.
• They can buy the technology, but then they don't get any expertise for later development. This is how Macromedia got the drawing program Freehand.
• They can hire employees of a company with the technology, but then they don't have any rights to the technology, don't get existing product, and can easily run into trade secrets issues. This is how Microsoft developed Windows NT.
• Or they can buy a company. They get the product, the rights to the technology, and the employees with the expertise for further development. This is how Google really developed the Android OS.

Any claim, any hint, even the idea that Google produced Android having no prior mobile OS experience is just ridiculous. Google gained that experience the instant Google bought Android, Inc.

[SmokingJoe]

“Any claim, any hint, even the idea that Google produced Android having no prior mobile OS experience is just ridiculous. Google gained that experience the instant Google bought Android, Inc”

Without Tony Fadell and without PortalPlayer, there is no iPod or even IPhone.
All it had to take was for Realnetworks or Philips not to have turned down Tony Fadell , and it would have been bye bye iPod.:

“One man that could be named the father of the iPod is Tony Fadell. Tony Fadell was a former employee of General Magic and Phillips who wanted to invent a better MP3 player.
After being turned down by RealNetworks and Phillips, Fadell found support for his project with Apple. Tony Fadell went to work for Apple Computers in 2001 as an independent contractor, leading a team of thirty people to develop the new MP3 player.

PortalPlayer
Tony Fadell also partnered with a company called PortalPlayer who had been working on their own MP3 player to design the software for the new Apple player. Jonathan Ive, Senior Vice President of Industrial Design at Apple Computers led the team that kept perfecting the iPod itself after Fadell’s team had finished their contract.
In the Wired article, Inside Look at Birth of the IPod, Ben Knauss a former senior manager at PortalPlayer revealed that Fadell was familiar with PortalPlayer’s reference designs for a couple of MP3 players, including one about the size of a cigarette packet. And though the design was unfinished, several prototypes had been built and Fadell recognized the design’s potential.

Within eight months, Tony Fadell’s team and PortalPlayer completed a prototype iPod and Apple polished the user interface adding the famous scroll wheel.”
http://inventors.about.com/od/istartinventions/a/iPod.htm

More from Wired:
http://www.wired.com/cult_of_mac/2004/04/father_of_the_i/

And the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/business/yourmoney/25jobs.html
Umm..what was it you were saying again?

[antiRepublicrat]

Without Tony Fadell and without PortalPlayer, there is no iPod or even IPhone. All it had to take was for Realnetworks or Philips not to have turned down Tony Fadell , and it would have been bye bye iPod.:

And what is the purpose of this meaningless distraction? You seem to miss the point of the article that Apple knew a good thing in what Fadell had, and everybody else didn't.

Apple polished the user interface adding the famous scroll wheel

It's kind of funny that even though Fadell's team made the guts, the iconic feature of the iPod above all other players was that Apple-designed click wheel and case.

[SmokingJoe]

And what is the purpose of this meaningless distraction?

"Distractions" huh? Chortle!
You are the one that kept screaming that Google only got Android because they bought some company no?
Well Apple did even “worse” than that with their iPods and by extention the iPhone, wich they wouldn't even have had at all if Tony Fadell hadn't come to Apple with his ideas on his MP3 player, after being rejected by Realnetworks and Philips.
That is like 0bozo talking about “distractions” back in 2008 whenever very valid questions were raised about his close associations with arch racist Jeremiah Wright and terrorist Bil Ayers were brought.

[antiRepublicrat]

BTW, missed this. Must correct the error. For context, the claim:

But this comparison is like saying how many Cadillac Escalades were sold vs how many Bus Passes were given away

Obviously refers to buying high-end vs. low-end in the market. We all know we pay part of our phone cost in the contract, so I will naturally refer to contract prices, with "free" meaning that there was no up-front charge for the phone. Of course we're only talking new phones, not refurbished, and we should stick to only recent models to keep it fair (no comparing the iPhone 4 to last year's Moto Droid). Now the parts of your response that I have an issue with:

Andrid smartphnes are selling at the same $200 as iPhones are.

Point 1: Only some Android smartphone models are selling at that price, such as the Incredible, Droid X and EVO 4G. Android smartphones are currently available as low as $49. Verizon actually has, right now, several cell phones priced the same as or higher than two Android smartphones. Per my promise above, these aren't last year's models, having been released in March and May of this year (I don't count the Moto Droid, last year's model).

Point #2: $200 is the low-end current iPhone. The high-end model sells for $300. Thus you see that in the smartphone market the Android phones and the iPhone meet at Android's high-end and Apple's low-end. Apple doesn't play in Android's low-end where the bulk of sales probably are.

You go on:

No Andriod smartphoines are being given away here. You gotta dip in your pocket and pay for the phones, same as you pay for the iPhones. Get it?

Earlier this year I went to my local Verizon shop to buy an Android smartphone ("an" as in *a*, singular, sole, solitary, one-each, in case you have problems comprehending that again) for me, at an advertised price of well under $200. But Verizon was having a "buy one get one free" deal, so I bought that one phone for me, and the other one was "given away" by Verizon to my wife. This wasn't a one-off lucky deal since Verizon continues "buy one get one free" to this day on selected phones.

[antiRepublicrat]

You are the one that kept screaming that Google only got Android because they bought some company no?

You were the one who kept screaming that Google produced Android with no prior experience. I showed you exactly where that experience came from. But what you write there is technically correct. Google did buy Android, the company and the product in development.

Well Apple did even “worse” than that with their iPods and by extention the iPhone, wich they wouldn't even have had at all if Tony Fadell hadn't come to Apple

What's with this "worse" thing? Why "worse" in quotes? I haven't used that word in this entire thread. Are you trying to invent yet another thing I was supposed to have said?

There's no better or worse. There's business. Apple could have hired Fadell and his team, and therefore retained all that expertise, but they decided to rent it instead. Google took a different tact, they outright bought not only the expertise, but the technology, code, etc. For the phone itself, the Nexus One, Google didn't even need any expertise because they basically gave a shopping list of desired features to HTC and imported the result. Obviously each choice worked well for each company. Well, except for the Nexus One, that didn't turn out so well.

I still don't get the point you're trying to make with this. I have proven that Google had prior OS expertise on-board to produce Android, contrary to your claim. Beyond that I don't really care which way is better or "worse" according some some strange criteria that exist only in your head.

[Centurion2000]

Carrying multiple batteries is not the ultimate solution. I just want a battery to last 24 hours.

iPhone 3G(s) models have a 5500 mah battery pack that is an after market addon ... fits it like a glove.

[RachelFaith]

It does fit like a glove and works like a charm and I hope that they have a WHITE one for the WHITE 4 when it comes out. I have the white in both for my 3.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Just focusing on this one piece of Logic...which seems to be...

If closed no virus ...

And if Open then Viruses....

So how do you explain..Windows ...closed and lots of viruses...

Open like BSD and Linux ....very little viruses?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I remember a Wang Word processing system...it was very good.

I remeber IBM Typewriter Division cratering from the competition,...RS xxx product came out to be competitive...later was upgraded to RS 6000 for additional markets with replaced processor under the hood.

[RachelFaith]

Closed in this discussion means the way programs and applications are reviewed and authorized. Most specifically to the smart phone industry. The model for PC vs Mac is based on Linux vs DOS. Very different set of circumstances producing a similar result.

Android allows anyone to make and distribute an app for use on their OS with no corporate oversight or authentication procedure. Open.

iOS is tightly controlled, apps are refused all the time and safety and integrity of the apps are assured. Closed.

In the PC world, it is: DOS based code vs Linux based code which accounts for the viruses and has much less to do with Open vs Closed, except the same premise is true, stuff can be written for PCs without any verification and just install itself with little to no user intervention. Mac is a little more strict in its coding and application execution permissions.