I think two of Google's major aims will be to improve competition among Android manufacturers and use the experience gained from building its own phones to improve Android for all of them.
That's not to say that Google won't make much money off the physical device, but I think Google's aim is to increase revenue from Android (ultimately adverts) by making the platform better.
Is it only me that think's this guy's a nutter that gets by by saying whatever Apple fans want to hear? Here's some of his startlingly wrong predictions about the smartphone market from last year:
* Android wouldn't grow faster than the average of RIM, Nokia, HP and Apple.
* Nokia wouldn't dump Symbian&Meego for someone else's OS.
* Android wouldn't do a great deal better than Windows Mobile
* Android vendors wouldn't be profitable
So not very good really, in fact a total blowout. Maybe he knows stuff about Apple, to be honest I think he's just like a sports fan during a season when his team is playing well. His elaborate theories of why they are succeeding don't seem to mesh with reality much, except in that Apple is doing very well, and I'm not sure he cares if they do or not.
While I usually don't agree with the convoluted and twisted logic of Asymco, Gruber and Marco (they do get a lot of undeserved traction on HN thanks to its big section of Apple fans), I think this time he does have a point.
It will be a tightrope walk for Google about who and how to share the longterm plans of the OS with etc.
Undeserved traction? Isn't Apple performing outrageously well with consumers and as a company? Were they not the largest capitalized company in the world at one point recently? If Apple were not being reported on here heavily (and positively), a site devoted to the intersection of hacking and business, that would be awfully weird, no? As far as I know, developer revenue from iPhone apps still dwarfs Android. Shouldn't that be pretty interesting to a community more than partly devoted to making money off of programming?
If anything, I suggest the extremely large number of Google employees who participate here swings the bias the other way. I found it exceedingly odd that--regarding a story about a company paying $12 billion to buy another company, the type of move that is normally considered incredibly risky, and the type of move which does not have a great track record in the annals of corporate history--after making it 3/4 of the way down the comment thread here on HN, there was virtually no criticism. Really? This move is a slam dunk?
I was talking about _some_ posts from sites like Asymco, Gruber's and Marco and some HN comments.
I don't know how you construed it as if my comment was against general(if a little overactive) Apple coverage, which is think is well deserved since Apple is doing a lot lately. You were attacking a strawman.
Maybe nutter is a strong word, but still, there is an obsession with taking numbers and 'facts' and trying to twist them into spin for Apple with dodgy long winded 'analysis/predictions' that doesn't stand five seconds of reason(except from the big Apple fanbase), all the while still trying to sound objective...
Besides android vendors aren't really profitable by big margins. Motorola in fact has continued losing money for past few years even after introducing android.
>HTC announced that its first quarter 2011 profits were up by a staggering 191 per cent to $511 million from the same time last year. Revenue figures were not too shabby either, showing 174 per cent growth, meaning that profit growth outstripped revenue growth, something that is particularly desirable on any balance sheet.
Do you get your news from Apple centered sites and blogs and the comments there? There seems to be an element of cognitive dissonance(or perhaps PR rhetoric?). If this was MS, there would be shouts of paid shills, but I am not going there.
Edit: Samsung made a profit of 1.5 billion dollars off their phones just last quarter.
While HTC's profits are unquestionably growing, their profit share actually declined a bit; remember it's a very rapidly expanding industry. Motorola Mobility, SE and LG are loss-making or close to it. Only Samsung is in a really strong position.
Samsung's profit margin is good, and HTC's acceptable (though neither are as high as Apple's), but all other major manufacturers are either loss-making or making a tiny profit margin.
My point was regarding profit margins. They are getting slimmer by the day as every device maker joins the downward spiral to get the phones out at a cheaper rate. Most these device makers outsource and do not have their own manufacturing. That's why sammy is is the one that is truly making money here.
and note: opinions that to not match yours can be independent. They don't have to be disillusioned or paid. Learn to respect them.
He's making much longer-term assessments about the evolving market. You seem to be calling it a "total blowout" from the perspective of a reality that hasn't actually happened yet.
The problem is that they are bandied about as independent opinion and analysis.
Gruber sells ads on his RSS feeds, which seem to cost thousands of dollars each, thanks to advertising by iOS apps. No wonder he plays to his fanbase with the pro-Apple and anti-Google/Android/MS rhetoric. He must be laughing all the way to the bank while thinking up his next 'The precisely perfect placement of the Chair at Macworld' and 'Dirty Percent' article. Also, he gets invited to Apple events, which may quickly disappear if he gets too critical(see Gizmodo).
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
-Sinclair
Regardless of the above quote, I do not accuse them of lying. But there's a strong elementy of hypocrisy and fanboyism, both in supporting Apple almost all the time, and screaming bloody murder and abject criticism of any moves by Apple's competitors.
Do you seriously think analysis by Asymco, Gruber and Marco regarding Apple are the flawless gospel truth?
The fallacy you mention would apply more to the accusations of commenters being paid MS shills, which happens all the time here on HN too.
By "disagrees with you" I mean one can find more examples of you complaining about it happening than of it actually happening.
Even CamperBob's comment is (in context) referring to commenters on sites like InformationWeek. Even if we generously interpret it as meaning what you say, the idea that it "happens all the time on HN" is a stretch.
Do you seriously think analysis by Asymco, Gruber and Marco regarding Apple are the flawless gospel truth?
Why would I have to believe that in order to respect their opinions? I’m not going to sink to the level and just attack them without actually engaging with their arguments. They are coherent and they have arguments, they deserve a response and not just blind attacks.
I’m not sure what any accusations (So, when did that happen?) have to do with that.
>They are coherent and they have arguments, they deserve a response and not just blind attacks.
The OP is a good example of this. Asymco's wrong many times and whenever it's wrong it's seems to have erred on the side of Apple. Still, the headlines draw interest and page views. What does that tell you?
If it was Google or MS instead of Apple there, Gruber would be screaming bloody murder about wilful manipulation of the law to further their ends and harm Apple's ascendancy. Am I wrong?
Since it is Apple, it is just 'one image' and 'sloppy lawyering'. Very predictable even before you read it. This is the opinion that we are all supposed to respect?
It's called spin, or a very biased opinion that needs to be taken with a spoon of salt. It's as close to Apple PR as you can get, aimed at a very specific audience.
Gruber generally never screams bloody murder. You also should never read him expecting an unbiased opinion of Google. That’s not the value proposition and it never was.
It’s very weird what you expect of Gruber. It just doesn’t make any sense.
>It’s very weird what you expect of Gruber. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Just a little more honesty and less hypocrisy would certainly help. As the OP said, those sites are more like sports team fanboy sites or political mouthpieces tailored to the audience/readers.
I've been reading Daring Fireball every day for years, but there's no more insight nowadays; only mean Apple fanboyism and snark. Is this the same man who at one time wrote insightful pieces like And Oranges ( http://daringfireball.net/2006/06/and_oranges ) ?
Not really. He forgot to consider the other set of companies making money from Android: Arms merchants like Qualcomm,TI and NVIDIA. For example, NVIDIA is pretty thrilled with all the Tegra 2 design wins they got from Android manufacturers.
He didn't "forget" them; the profitability of component manufacturers has no more to do with the fact that most Android licensee Phone manufacturers aren't turning much profit off the business than the profitability of shovel salesmen has to do with the fact that most gold prospectors never found anything worth selling.
Yes, it does. "Arms merchants" like Qualcomm, TI and NVIDIA are more than just "shovel salesmen". Among other things, they're the ones who do the first ports of Android to their chipsets. I don't remember where I read this, but they compete just as much as the phone manufacturers do to make it into "Nexus / Google Experience" devices.
One of the big reasons profitability matters is because it drives future investment. To the extent that component manufacturers are making money porting Android to their components and selling the combination, they're going to keep investing, even if their downstream customers are locked in a brutal price war.
Sounds very unlikely. If it was that they would've have announced it by now. Or the headline would be 'Google gets joint licensing(and right to sue) for Motorola patents for $6 billion'.
>I think the way the courts work is that only the patent owner can sue for infringement.
I am not sure about that, companies like Intellectual Ventures/Lodsys do all kinds of manipulations.
>And recent events tend to show that Moto Mobility would not have been able to continue to sell smartphones if they had sold their patents to Google.
That wouldn't work like that. Google would (need to) provide patent indemnification to Android licensees like Microsoft does with their desktop Windows and mobile WP7.
Huh what? If they had bought the Novell or Nortel patents, would they have been blocked? In fact they were able to block MS(via the DoJ) from using Novell patents against Android.
"Symbian was formed to be governed in a way very similar to the original Android via the Open Handset Alliance."
Riiiiight. I was at an OHA company during the early Android days post-Google. OHA was created by Google to make their subcontractors look like "partners" in Android development. There was no boss other than Google in this project.
So, Verizon needs to hire some coders and get cracking? It took Apple and Google years to produce a good modern phone OS. Palm took a shot at their own os, and as near as i can tell, they're gone now.
Phone manufacturers made their choice a decade ago. They picked closed, complex, developer hostile platforms. Now, it seems, that was a mistake. Phone manufacturers get to fund Apple, Google, or Microsoft's, move into their markets.
Wasn't there an article recently about how Samsung supplies a large chunk of the components in the iPhone? It's a different department but isn't it the same dilemma?
47 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 85.0 ms ] threadThat's not to say that Google won't make much money off the physical device, but I think Google's aim is to increase revenue from Android (ultimately adverts) by making the platform better.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/11/03/what-do-you-have-to-believe...
His key arguments where that:
* Android wouldn't grow faster than the average of RIM, Nokia, HP and Apple.
* Nokia wouldn't dump Symbian&Meego for someone else's OS.
* Android wouldn't do a great deal better than Windows Mobile
* Android vendors wouldn't be profitable
So not very good really, in fact a total blowout. Maybe he knows stuff about Apple, to be honest I think he's just like a sports fan during a season when his team is playing well. His elaborate theories of why they are succeeding don't seem to mesh with reality much, except in that Apple is doing very well, and I'm not sure he cares if they do or not.
It will be a tightrope walk for Google about who and how to share the longterm plans of the OS with etc.
If anything, I suggest the extremely large number of Google employees who participate here swings the bias the other way. I found it exceedingly odd that--regarding a story about a company paying $12 billion to buy another company, the type of move that is normally considered incredibly risky, and the type of move which does not have a great track record in the annals of corporate history--after making it 3/4 of the way down the comment thread here on HN, there was virtually no criticism. Really? This move is a slam dunk?
I don't know how you construed it as if my comment was against general(if a little overactive) Apple coverage, which is think is well deserved since Apple is doing a lot lately. You were attacking a strawman.
Do you get your news from Apple centered sites and blogs and the comments there? There seems to be an element of cognitive dissonance(or perhaps PR rhetoric?). If this was MS, there would be shouts of paid shills, but I am not going there.
Edit: Samsung made a profit of 1.5 billion dollars off their phones just last quarter.
While HTC's profits are unquestionably growing, their profit share actually declined a bit; remember it's a very rapidly expanding industry. Motorola Mobility, SE and LG are loss-making or close to it. Only Samsung is in a really strong position.
>Besides android vendors aren't really profitable by big margins
and note: opinions that to not match yours can be independent. They don't have to be disillusioned or paid. Learn to respect them.
You mean like Apple?
It's tasteless, but profitable.
The problem is that they are bandied about as independent opinion and analysis.
Gruber sells ads on his RSS feeds, which seem to cost thousands of dollars each, thanks to advertising by iOS apps. No wonder he plays to his fanbase with the pro-Apple and anti-Google/Android/MS rhetoric. He must be laughing all the way to the bank while thinking up his next 'The precisely perfect placement of the Chair at Macworld' and 'Dirty Percent' article. Also, he gets invited to Apple events, which may quickly disappear if he gets too critical(see Gizmodo).
Regardless of the above quote, I do not accuse them of lying. But there's a strong elementy of hypocrisy and fanboyism, both in supporting Apple almost all the time, and screaming bloody murder and abject criticism of any moves by Apple's competitors.
Do you seriously think analysis by Asymco, Gruber and Marco regarding Apple are the flawless gospel truth?
The fallacy you mention would apply more to the accusations of commenters being paid MS shills, which happens all the time here on HN too.
hnsearch disagrees with you.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2855328
Even CamperBob's comment is (in context) referring to commenters on sites like InformationWeek. Even if we generously interpret it as meaning what you say, the idea that it "happens all the time on HN" is a stretch.
Why would I have to believe that in order to respect their opinions? I’m not going to sink to the level and just attack them without actually engaging with their arguments. They are coherent and they have arguments, they deserve a response and not just blind attacks.
I’m not sure what any accusations (So, when did that happen?) have to do with that.
The OP is a good example of this. Asymco's wrong many times and whenever it's wrong it's seems to have erred on the side of Apple. Still, the headlines draw interest and page views. What does that tell you?
For example, lets take this post. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/15/apple-samsung-im...
If it was Google or MS instead of Apple there, Gruber would be screaming bloody murder about wilful manipulation of the law to further their ends and harm Apple's ascendancy. Am I wrong?
Since it is Apple, it is just 'one image' and 'sloppy lawyering'. Very predictable even before you read it. This is the opinion that we are all supposed to respect?
It's called spin, or a very biased opinion that needs to be taken with a spoon of salt. It's as close to Apple PR as you can get, aimed at a very specific audience.
It’s very weird what you expect of Gruber. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Just a little more honesty and less hypocrisy would certainly help. As the OP said, those sites are more like sports team fanboy sites or political mouthpieces tailored to the audience/readers.
To go off on a funny tangent:
Well, maybe I just don't get it unless I am in the RDF myself. http://www.tuaw.com/2011/05/17/bbc-loving-apple-looks-like-a...
That is why maybe all those sites feels weird to me but seem perfectly fine to many others!
One of the big reasons profitability matters is because it drives future investment. To the extent that component manufacturers are making money porting Android to their components and selling the combination, they're going to keep investing, even if their downstream customers are locked in a brutal price war.
And recent events tend to show that Moto Mobility would not have been able to continue to sell smartphones if they had sold their patents to Google.
I am not sure about that, companies like Intellectual Ventures/Lodsys do all kinds of manipulations.
>And recent events tend to show that Moto Mobility would not have been able to continue to sell smartphones if they had sold their patents to Google.
That wouldn't work like that. Google would (need to) provide patent indemnification to Android licensees like Microsoft does with their desktop Windows and mobile WP7.
A reason for them not to announce it is fear of drawing the attention of anti-trust regulators.
Riiiiight. I was at an OHA company during the early Android days post-Google. OHA was created by Google to make their subcontractors look like "partners" in Android development. There was no boss other than Google in this project.
Phone manufacturers made their choice a decade ago. They picked closed, complex, developer hostile platforms. Now, it seems, that was a mistake. Phone manufacturers get to fund Apple, Google, or Microsoft's, move into their markets.
Wasn't there an article recently about how Samsung supplies a large chunk of the components in the iPhone? It's a different department but isn't it the same dilemma?