Page 5 of 14 « First 34 5 67 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
Rauha is offline Rauha
2010-09-21 , 16:24
Posts: 1,400 | Thanked: 3,751 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Arctic cold of northern .fi
#41
Originally Posted by daperl View Post
Sounds about right: Android is the McDonalds of phone OSes.
And becoming the Wintel of phones from manufacturers point of view, except for the fact that Google sells the ink cartridges on Android.

HTC seems to be taking first steps out of Google's "All your non-harware revenue are belong to us" trap with Google Maps alternative. Will be intersting to see how it goes.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Rauha For This Useful Post:
qwazix's Avatar
qwazix is offline qwazix
2010-09-21 , 16:32
Moderator | Posts: 2,622 | Thanked: 5,447 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#42
Originally Posted by yorg View Post
Can you elaborate more on how this makes any difference? The end goal is to create one or more OS for mobile devices. How is a company that adopts Android in any different shape than a company that adopts Symbian or Meego?

It doesn't matter how many parties are used to develop the OS. It is one product they are working for and their aim is to dominate the market with that product, otherwise what's the point of even trying.
That is exactly the difference Nokia is not a company that adopts Symbian or MeeGo. It's a company that develops them. And they also produce hardware. Google and Microsoft also tried to venture in the hardware market (Nexus was made by HTC alright but it was a google branded phone - who knows what the plan was) but failed miserably.

I can assume that the place that nokia is (hardware vendor with it's own software and software vendor for others at the same time) is where everybody wants to be.
Ms Kin, Google Nexus, and Samsung Bada all smelled like that. Bada is the last one alive...
________
01SmilyBlonde
Last edited by qwazix; 2011-08-21 at 10:41.
 
ysss's Avatar
ysss is offline ysss
2010-09-21 , 16:44
Posts: 4,384 | Thanked: 5,524 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
#43
Just business as usual.

Google isn't dumb. Samsung isn't dumb. htc isn't dumb.
Being Android 'serfs', they certainly get plenty of benefits too.

Sure, if Nokia can take off with S*3/4 and/or MeeGo, then their potential gain is high. That is, IF they can pull something off that they've failed to do for the past few years again and again.
Then there's Ovi. And their constant internal flux.

And Apple, Google and RIM are not standing still either.

It's a tough winter out there.

Nokia may pee in their pants if they can't control themselves.
__________________
Class .. : Power User
Humor .. : [#####-----] | Alignment: Pragmatist
 Patience : [###-------] | Weapon(s): Galaxy Note + BB Bold Touch 9900
 Agro ... : [###-------] | Relic(s) : iPhone 4S, Atrix, Milestone, N900, N800, N95, HTC G1, Treos, Zauri, BB 9000, BB 9700, etc
Follow the MeeGo Coding Competition!
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ysss For This Useful Post:
yorg is offline yorg
2010-09-21 , 16:56
Posts: 147 | Thanked: 49 times | Joined on Dec 2009
#44
Originally Posted by qwazix View Post
That is exactly the difference Nokia is not a company that adopts Symbian or MeeGo. It's a company that develops them. And they also produce hardware. Google and Microsoft also tried to venture in the hardware market (Nexus was made by HTC alright but it was a google branded phone - who knows what the plan was) but failed miserably.

I can assume that the place that nokia is (hardware vendor with it's own software and software vendor for others at the same time) is where everybody wants to be.
Ms Kin, Google Nexus, and Samsung Bada all smelled like that. Bada is the last one alive...
So if google also made its own hardware, the adopters of Android would not be "peeing in their pants to warm up" any more?

Nokia wants others to adopt Symbian as much as Google wants others to adopt Android. The matter of choice will of course always be there, unless Google manages to produce such a strong offering that no other OS can survive.

There are more things than just the OS to differentiate a device after all.

To me Anssi's statement sounds like a classic case of cognitive dissonance.
Last edited by yorg; 2010-09-21 at 16:59.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to yorg For This Useful Post:
daperl's Avatar
daperl is offline daperl
2010-09-21 , 17:01
Posts: 2,427 | Thanked: 2,986 times | Joined on Dec 2007
#45
Originally Posted by Rauha View Post
HTC seems to be taking first steps out of Google's "All your non-harware revenue are belong to us" trap with Google Maps alternative. Will be intersting to see how it goes.
Yes, I think Google's true colors are a question mark, but I think we'll have good answers by the end of 2011.

For the sake of argument, let's say Google is evil. By evil, I mean Embrace Extend Extinguish. Then the question is, how are they different from Microsoft? For me, it's because they learned from Microsoft's biggest mistake: You actually have to be better than the other guy.

Google is full steam ahead, but they know how to admit mistakes and regroup. Google Wave is a great example; it was a bit too much and they nuked it. Now, it looks like they're taking the useful pieces and reformulating them.

So, I don't know yet whether they're good or evil, but they seem to know the difference between the right and wrong way to do things. And it all trickles down from the top. The ego, or lack there of, of a CEO is always telling.
__________________
N9: Go white or go home
Last edited by daperl; 2010-09-21 at 17:04. Reason: duh
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to daperl For This Useful Post:
ragnar is offline ragnar
2010-09-21 , 17:05
Posts: 631 | Thanked: 1,123 times | Joined on Sep 2005 @ Helsinki
#46
I think Anssi - love his choice of wording btw - is fairly right. He of course means mostly manufacturers, not the end users. Especially if Google goes through with their purpoted plans with 3.0 Gingerbread UI of eliminating the possibilities of device manufacturers to create their own custom UI's, the game for the manufacturers very quickly comes down to who can create the cheapest appealing hardware running the same software. Similar to what happened in the desktop world a long time ago. Companies like HTC especially would not like that at all, since they want to create 'additional value' - i.e. more expensive devices to sell - through customizing the default Android experience.
 

The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to ragnar For This Useful Post:
Capt'n Corrupt's Avatar
Capt'n Corrupt is offline Capt'n Corrupt
2010-09-21 , 17:12
Posts: 3,524 | Thanked: 2,958 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Delta Quadrant
#47
This article is ridiculous. To say that a single-OS/multi-device strategy doesn't work from a profitability standpoint is to ignore the last two decades of Windows computers, and the respective companies producing them that have come to dominate the industry.

With this level of 'foresight' it's not surprising he was fired.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post:
daperl's Avatar
daperl is offline daperl
2010-09-21 , 17:21
Posts: 2,427 | Thanked: 2,986 times | Joined on Dec 2007
#48
Originally Posted by ragnar View Post
I think Anssi - love his choice of wording btw - is fairly right. He of course means mostly manufacturers, not the end users. Especially if Google goes through with their purpoted plans with 3.0 Gingerbread UI of eliminating the possibilities of device manufacturers to create their own custom UI's, the game for the manufacturers very quickly comes down to who can create the cheapest appealing hardware running the same software. Similar to what happened in the desktop world a long time ago. Companies like HTC especially would not like that at all, since they want to create 'additional value' - i.e. more expensive devices to sell - through customizing the default Android experience.
Well, then your analogy fails. I don't remember Dell, Gateway, Acer, ..., etc. rewriting the MS Windows UI.
__________________
N9: Go white or go home
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to daperl For This Useful Post:
geohsia is offline geohsia
2010-09-21 , 17:28
Posts: 515 | Thanked: 259 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#49
Originally Posted by Capt'n Corrupt View Post
This article is ridiculous. To say that a single-OS/multi-device strategy doesn't work from a profitability standpoint is to ignore the last two decades of Windows computers, and the respective companies producing them that have come to dominate the industry.

With this level of 'foresight' it's not surprising he was fired.
Yes and no.

I think understanding that the computer market has been commoditized and that profits are shrinking because everyone is selling the same thing is a challenge. It is in this environment though that Apple is able to charge so much. A) because they do make nice product and B) because it isn't Windows. That's Nokia's challenge, bring differentiation and quality. We'll see if they can do that.

In the Android market, the reason there is so much fragmentation is because there are so many players. They have to stand out from every other Android vendor. Nokia if they joined Android would undoubtedly have to do the same, so Android or not, there's still plenty of work to be done, though presumably not as much with Android.

The bottom line for me is, I think it would be nice for Nokia to run Android, but I think the mobile market is still young enough that they can take another big player. The market is still developing. Cloud services are still being worked on. It's too early to call game over.

If after MeeGo releases, everything goes south and no one buys one S^3 or MeeGo phone, how long would it take for Nokia to crank out Android phones? For them, probably not very long. I just don't think they're done fighting.
Last edited by geohsia; 2010-09-21 at 17:31.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to geohsia For This Useful Post:
ragnar is offline ragnar
2010-09-21 , 17:39
Posts: 631 | Thanked: 1,123 times | Joined on Sep 2005 @ Helsinki
#50
Originally Posted by daperl View Post
Well, then your analogy fails. I don't remember Dell, Gateway, Acer, ..., etc. rewriting the MS Windows UI.
They're not (well, except some of them do try to cram on their additional 'useful' pieces of software on top of the OEM builds). But that's the game that they're then playing: the profit margins are much lower than what is currently achieved through selling mobile devices. There are a gazillion smaller manufacturers all competing for the same piece of pie.

I'm not sure many companies like HTC or Samsung or Motorola want to turn out to be the new Acers and Gateways (no disrespect to those companies as such).

It'll be very interesting to see anyway what Google does in 3.0.
 
Reply
Page 5 of 14 « First 34 5 67 Last »

Tags
back it up sam, chair-throwing, change me, nokia's-balmer, show proof, trolling, video stream, we need diapers

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:11.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top