From Steve Jobs' Biography: "I'm going to destroy Android"

[KnightWRX]

No. They can. You can purchase patents and whoever infringes on them is infringing on your IP, not the company you purchased. Hence, there's nothing illogical about that.

Apple owns no patent to Multi-touch. They have patents for some gestures, but not the entire concept.

Hence Android using multi-touch as 1 input mecanism is not a rip-off of iOS. Again, if Apple is not the source, Apple can't have been ripped-off. You're illogical.

If you think I have been wasting your time, you should have ignored me 40 pages ago, or at least that's what I would have done.

Good point. Done. Should've been about 5 threads and 2 months ago actually. You always waste my time.

 

[iBug2]

Apple owns no patent to Multi-touch. They have patents for some gestures, but not the entire concept.

Hence Android using multi-touch as 1 input mecanism is not a rip-off of iOS. Again, if Apple is not the source, Apple can't have been ripped-off. You're illogical.

Did I say Apple owned multitouch patents? I always stated they own gestures. So anyone using those exact gestures is ripping Apple off, even though Fingerworks invented those gestures. So, nothing illogical about that.

Also, this is only patent infringement. Forget the patents.

If Apple was the first company to bring multitouch to a smartphone (which they were, not opinion, fact), so anyone making multitouch smartphones after them is ripping off that idea, which is my opinion of course.

Good point. Done. Should've been about 5 threads and 2 months ago actually. You always waste my time.

2 months? I think it goes almost 1.5 years back.

And I don't always waste your time. I remember that I quoted some fact in a thunderbolt thread, which you didn't know about, and it supported your argument. You quoted my quotation so I know that it helped you there. Anyway.

 

[divinox]

Still waiting? Okay Mr. Too lazy to research, where do we start?

1. IOS was first proposed to be Linux based, but then they decided to make a stripped down version of OSX. The Apple brewed concept of how to re-tool Linux into a phone OS is IDENTICAL to what Google did.... and.... Google magically hired people from Apple who had been on that project.
2. Eric Scmidt Also had inside knowledge
3. It isn't technically correct to call Android identical... I mean, it is a different OS. No one would say that IOS is that awful insult to an OS. Anroid is more like an OS on an OS which it what makes it clunky, however, all the interface concepts, frameworks, APIS, etc. were totally ripped off.
4. Android was a half baked idea that went from concept to production extremely fast... a feat not possible without having had ripped off Apple. If they'd started from scratch, Android wouldn't have hit the market for at least another two years. They were courting hardware partners before they even had a working version of the software. Things that make you go hmmm.

Apple was not first to market with a smart phone, or even a touch screen. Technically, they didn't invent multi-touch, but they did buy Fingerworks, the company who did so they yes, owned that tech. Tell me how Google, a software company (if you can even call them that really) managed to come up with all the under the hood tech that drives Android devices that fast without copying?

They bloody hired people from Apple with insider knowledge, and had their CEO on Apple's board. If you're that daft, then you fall under the protection of the stupid escape clause. They say god protects the stupid

Far too many inaccuracies and unsupported claims to really make me give a crap, so ill just say this: Fingerworks did not invent multi-touch.

 

[rockrigo]

Still waiting? Okay Mr. Too lazy to research, where do we start?

1. IOS was first proposed to be Linux based, but then they decided to make a stripped down version of OSX. The Apple brewed concept of how to re-tool Linux into a phone OS is IDENTICAL to what Google did.... and.... Google magically hired people from Apple who had been on that project.
2. Eric Scmidt Also had inside knowledge
3. It isn't technically correct to call Android identical... I mean, it is a different OS. No one would say that IOS is that awful insult to an OS. Anroid is more like an OS on an OS which it what makes it clunky, however, all the interface concepts, frameworks, APIS, etc. were totally ripped off.
4. Android was a half baked idea that went from concept to production extremely fast... a feat not possible without having had ripped off Apple. If they'd started from scratch, Android wouldn't have hit the market for at least another two years. They were courting hardware partners before they even had a working version of the software. Things that make you go hmmm.

Apple was not first to market with a smart phone, or even a touch screen. Technically, they didn't invent multi-touch, but they did buy Fingerworks, the company who did so they yes, owned that tech. Tell me how Google, a software company (if you can even call them that really) managed to come up with all the under the hood tech that drives Android devices that fast without copying?

They bloody hired people from Apple with insider knowledge, and had their CEO on Apple's board. If you're that daft, then you fall under the protection of the stupid escape clause. They say god protects the stupid

is that you Rush?

 

[vrDrew]

Are people still arguing Xerox Parc? Off-topic is one thing, the ten thousandth rehashing of an irrelevant tu quoque piece of ancient history is getting really tiresome.

Steve Jobs, understandably perhaps, expressed a desire to "destroy" Android. Is that a plausible outcome? And if so, how would he go about doing so?

Its worth remembering that ten years ago, the hottest name in mobile phones was Nokia. Five years ago RIM and Blackberry ruled the nascent smartphone industry. Sometimes things change very quickly. Twenty years ago Microsoft dominated the PC operating systems business. They still do today. Sometimes things stay the same.

In my opinion, Android has a number of vulnerabilities.

Poor Business Model
Google doesn't make any money from Android. They DO make money from mobile search (ie. display ads that pop up when people search the mobile web.) But it is far from clear that there is anything more than a weak link between the "success" of Android in terms of activations, and the amount of money Google makes in return. Google is a wealthy, profitable company. But at some point the investors and directors are going to expect to see some return on their Android investment. I've not yet heard a plausible explanation as to how that is supposed to happen. Remember, "Revenue" is not the same as "Profit", and two thirds of "Mobile Revenue" actually comes from iOS devices.

IP Vulnerabilities
Oracle vs. Google. Microsoft vs. HTC and Samsung. Apple vs. Samsung, HTC, etc. Obviously a lot of people who know their business think that Android copied something. And quite a few Judges seem to agree. Probably not enough to "kill" Android on its own. But certainly enough to force either serious changes in the Android user experience, and more than enough to make Android partners (Samsung, HTC) question Android's value as a partner. (See "Windows Phone" below.)

China
The biggest potential market for smartphones right now is China. Its not impossible there will be 100 million smartphones there five years from now. And Google isn't the preferred search engine there (Baidu is.) What value do 50 million Chinese smartphone users (using a competitor's search engine) bring to Google?

App Store
Android's "App Store" model doesn't work. It doesn't pay enough money to developers. It doesn't keep enough junk out of the store. Its too vulnerable to malware and viruses. It suffers from fragmentation, competition, and a serious lack of curation. Google could fix some of this, but doing so would mean essentially trashing their modus operandi of the past four years.

Customer Satisfaction
Apple's iPhone consistently scores customer satisfaction ratings of 90% or so, ten to fifteen points higher than its competitors. What does this mean? It means it is going to be very, very hard for Android to convert iPhone users. It means its much easier for Apple to convert Android users to iPhone owners.

Windows Phone
Watching Google buy Motorola. And then paying Microsoft per handset licensing fees. And then having their businesses constantly under legal assault from Apple. At some point Samsung and HTC are bound to at least consider partnering up with Microsoft. Microsoft Phone doesn't have to be better than Android. It just doesn't have to suck.

Siri
Although this is still in Beta, I'm convinced this is going to be a category killer. Its so far removed from Android Voice Actions, its not even close. Google might be able to come up with something close in a year or two - but by then I think its going to be too late.

Conclusions
If Steve Jobs "screwed up" in his last five years at Apple, it was in underestimating the popularity of the iPhone. iPhone's growth was constrained by exclusive carrier contracts, and by production limitations. These created an artificial shortage, one that was met by "copycat" Android devices from Samsung and HTC.

My pal Horace Dediu has an interesting series of posts, theorizing that Apple's massive investment in Property, Plant, and Equipment over the past few years has been for machines capable of giving Apple an insurmountable advantage in mass production of iPhones. Couple a massive increase in iPhone production capacity, along with a massive increase in the number of carrier partners - these restrictions have been all but eliminated.

Look out, Android.

 

[macsmurf]

Are people still arguing Xerox Parc? Off-topic is one thing, the ten thousandth rehashing of an irrelevant tu quoque piece of ancient history is getting really tiresome.

Steve Jobs, understandably perhaps, expressed a desire to "destroy" Android. Is that a plausible outcome? And if so, how would he go about doing so?

Its worth remembering that ten years ago, the hottest name in mobile phones was Nokia. Five years ago RIM and Blackberry ruled the nascent smartphone industry. Sometimes things change very quickly. Twenty years ago Microsoft dominated the PC operating systems business. They still do today. Sometimes things stay the same.

In my opinion, Android has a number of vulnerabilities.

Poor Business Model
Google doesn't make any money from Android. They DO make money from mobile search (ie. display ads that pop up when people search the mobile web.) But it is far from clear that there is anything more than a weak link between the "success" of Android in terms of activations, and the amount of money Google makes in return. Google is a wealthy, profitable company. But at some point the investors and directors are going to expect to see some return on their Android investment. I've not yet heard a plausible explanation as to how that is supposed to happen. Remember, "Revenue" is not the same as "Profit", and two thirds of "Mobile Revenue" actually comes from iOS devices.

That's only part of the reason for Android. The other, which is equally important, is that Google did not want to be in the same position that the reord industry has been in for years. Apple has a history of using an platform monopoly to squeeze their business partners (as well they should). It was simply bad business to defer the mobile market to Apple.

IP Vulnerabilities
Oracle vs. Google. Microsoft vs. HTC and Samsung. Apple vs. Samsung, HTC, etc. Obviously a lot of people who know their business think that Android copied something. And quite a few Judges seem to agree. Probably not enough to "kill" Android on its own. But certainly enough to force either serious changes in the Android user experience, and more than enough to make Android partners (Samsung, HTC) question Android's value as a partner. (See "Windows Phone" below.)

The lawyers know the law - not the business. AFAIK no judge has agreed that Google copied somehing. If you talk about the people who know the IT business, the majority don't seem to think Google copied something. IT professionals also seem to be very much against software patents, which is strange since software patents were supposed to protect our rights.

HTC, Samsung, and Google are distinct companies. If Samsung gets sued that doesn't mean Google gets sued as well.

China
The biggest potential market for smartphones right now is China. Its not impossible there will be 100 million smartphones there five years from now. And Google isn't the preferred search engine there (Baidu is.) What value do 50 million Chinese smartphone users (using a competitor's search engine) bring to Google?

If you integrate search and other services in your platform you have a distinct advantage. That is also true in China. Is Android more popular in China than iOS?

App Store
Android's "App Store" model doesn't work. It doesn't pay enough money to developers. It doesn't keep enough junk out of the store. Its too vulnerable to malware and viruses. It suffers from fragmentation, competition, and a serious lack of curation. Google could fix some of this, but doing so would mean essentially trashing their modus operandi of the past four years.

And yet Android is the most popular mobile OS out there.

Customer Satisfaction
Apple's iPhone consistently scores customer satisfaction ratings of 90% or so, ten to fifteen points higher than its competitors. What does this mean? It means it is going to be very, very hard for Android to convert iPhone users. It means its much easier for Apple to convert Android users to iPhone owners.

And yet Android is the most popular mobile OS out there.

Windows Phone
Watching Google buy Motorola. And then paying Microsoft per handset licensing fees. And then having their businesses constantly under legal assault from Apple. At some point Samsung and HTC are bound to at least consider partnering up with Microsoft. Microsoft Phone doesn't have to be better than Android. It just doesn't have to suck.

Google doesn't pay Microsoft anything. It's true that Microsoft threatens mobile companies to pay license fees but they have repeatedly refused to disclose what IP they think Android violates. The Motorola purchase was a defensive move. It remains to be seen if it will work.

Siri
Although this is still in Beta, I'm convinced this is going to be a category killer. Its so far removed from Android Voice Actions, its not even close. Google might be able to come up with something close in a year or two - but by then I think its going to be too late.

Maybe. On the other hand, maybe not. Apple is very good at hyping something that very few people end up using on a regular basis. Look at Facetime. I think of Siri as mostly a gimmick. It's too early to tell.

 

[thenerdal]

Poor Business Model
Google doesn't make any money from Android. They DO make money from mobile search (ie. display ads that pop up when people search the mobile web.) But it is far from clear that there is anything more than a weak link between the "success" of Android in terms of activations, and the amount of money Google makes in return. Google is a wealthy, profitable company. But at some point the investors and directors are going to expect to see some return on their Android investment. I've not yet heard a plausible explanation as to how that is supposed to happen. Remember, "Revenue" is not the same as "Profit", and two thirds of "Mobile Revenue" actually comes from iOS devices.

Google does not give android away for free. That is not what open source means. It means those using android are free to adjust it to work with their devices. Google still makes money from licensing fees to everyone using android. They make a lot.

 

[singlestick]

Still waiting? Okay Mr. Too lazy to research, where do we start?

1. IOS was first proposed to be Linux based, but then they decided to make a stripped down version of OSX. The Apple brewed concept of how to re-tool Linux into a phone OS is IDENTICAL to what Google did.... and.... Google magically hired people from Apple who had been on that project.
2. Eric Scmidt Also had inside knowledge
3. It isn't technically correct to call Android identical... I mean, it is a different OS. No one would say that IOS is that awful insult to an OS. Anroid is more like an OS on an OS which it what makes it clunky, however, all the interface concepts, frameworks, APIS, etc. were totally ripped off.
4. Android was a half baked idea that went from concept to production extremely fast... a feat not possible without having had ripped off Apple. If they'd started from scratch, Android wouldn't have hit the market for at least another two years. They were courting hardware partners before they even had a working version of the software. Things that make you go hmmm.

Apple was not first to market with a smart phone, or even a touch screen. Technically, they didn't invent multi-touch, but they did buy Fingerworks, the company who did so they yes, owned that tech. Tell me how Google, a software company (if you can even call them that really) managed to come up with all the under the hood tech that drives Android devices that fast without copying?

They bloody hired people from Apple with insider knowledge, and had their CEO on Apple's board. If you're that daft, then you fall under the protection of the stupid escape clause. They say god protects the stupid

None of this means anything to consumers. It doesn't even mean much to Apple and Google, unless they want to squander their cash on pointless legal battles.

Tech companies may be falling into the same trap that is strangling media companies. They are trying to protect their turf instead of concentrating on innovation and product development. This never works.

If Apple and Google have a dispute, it is in their interest to resolve it as quickly as possible. They never know when an upstart or competitor will rise and overtake them.

 

[divinox]

Are people still arguing Xerox Parc? Off-topic is one thing, the ten thousandth rehashing of an irrelevant tu quoque piece of ancient history is getting really tiresome.

Steve Jobs, understandably perhaps, expressed a desire to "destroy" Android. Is that a plausible outcome? And if so, how would he go about doing so?

Its worth remembering that ten years ago, the hottest name in mobile phones was Nokia. Five years ago RIM and Blackberry ruled the nascent smartphone industry. Sometimes things change very quickly. Twenty years ago Microsoft dominated the PC operating systems business. They still do today. Sometimes things stay the same.

In my opinion, Android has a number of vulnerabilities.

Poor Business Model
Google doesn't make any money from Android. They DO make money from mobile search (ie. display ads that pop up when people search the mobile web.) But it is far from clear that there is anything more than a weak link between the "success" of Android in terms of activations, and the amount of money Google makes in return. Google is a wealthy, profitable company. But at some point the investors and directors are going to expect to see some return on their Android investment. I've not yet heard a plausible explanation as to how that is supposed to happen. Remember, "Revenue" is not the same as "Profit", and two thirds of "Mobile Revenue" actually comes from iOS devices.

IP Vulnerabilities
Oracle vs. Google. Microsoft vs. HTC and Samsung. Apple vs. Samsung, HTC, etc. Obviously a lot of people who know their business think that Android copied something. And quite a few Judges seem to agree. Probably not enough to "kill" Android on its own. But certainly enough to force either serious changes in the Android user experience, and more than enough to make Android partners (Samsung, HTC) question Android's value as a partner. (See "Windows Phone" below.)

China
The biggest potential market for smartphones right now is China. Its not impossible there will be 100 million smartphones there five years from now. And Google isn't the preferred search engine there (Baidu is.) What value do 50 million Chinese smartphone users (using a competitor's search engine) bring to Google?

App Store
Android's "App Store" model doesn't work. It doesn't pay enough money to developers. It doesn't keep enough junk out of the store. Its too vulnerable to malware and viruses. It suffers from fragmentation, competition, and a serious lack of curation. Google could fix some of this, but doing so would mean essentially trashing their modus operandi of the past four years.

Customer Satisfaction
Apple's iPhone consistently scores customer satisfaction ratings of 90% or so, ten to fifteen points higher than its competitors. What does this mean? It means it is going to be very, very hard for Android to convert iPhone users. It means its much easier for Apple to convert Android users to iPhone owners.

Windows Phone
Watching Google buy Motorola. And then paying Microsoft per handset licensing fees. And then having their businesses constantly under legal assault from Apple. At some point Samsung and HTC are bound to at least consider partnering up with Microsoft. Microsoft Phone doesn't have to be better than Android. It just doesn't have to suck.

Siri
Although this is still in Beta, I'm convinced this is going to be a category killer. Its so far removed from Android Voice Actions, its not even close. Google might be able to come up with something close in a year or two - but by then I think its going to be too late.

Conclusions
If Steve Jobs "screwed up" in his last five years at Apple, it was in underestimating the popularity of the iPhone. iPhone's growth was constrained by exclusive carrier contracts, and by production limitations. These created an artificial shortage, one that was met by "copycat" Android devices from Samsung and HTC.

My pal Horace Dediu has an interesting series of posts, theorizing that Apple's massive investment in Property, Plant, and Equipment over the past few years has been for machines capable of giving Apple an insurmountable advantage in mass production of iPhones. Couple a massive increase in iPhone production capacity, along with a massive increase in the number of carrier partners - these restrictions have been all but eliminated.

Look out, Android.

While i, too, think that Androids future, or rather its continued success, is far from cut in stone i'd like to comment on your first theme.

Google is dealing in data. More specially, individualized data that can then be sold to companies in form of targeted ads. If anything, the rates Facebook is pulling shows how valuable personalized data is, and what greater thing to control then (other than perhaps your social profile, which they are also going for) than your personalized device? (phone, and something they have yet to succeed with, your computer). Thus, Google will never (never say never!) be about direct profits from their services. They operate a two-sided market, with a heavily skewed pricing scheme. As long as they can pull more data on you, and your use, investors couldn't care less about services being free. They're not after your money, they're after your life - or rather, every single detail about it!

(which is why i, personally, don't want to get sucked in to their ecosystem. its bad enough that i use their search engine).

 

[iBug2]

They're not after your money, they're after your life - or rather, every single detail about it!

(which is why i, personally, don't want to get sucked in to their ecosystem. its bad enough that i use their search engine).

I partly agree that it's in the least icky that they, or Facebook, has access to so much personal information about people. But to make the best search experience, you need to personalize search, and Google's that very same icky position helps them to do that.

But of course, that doesn't mean they should sell my information.

 

[organerito]

Still waiting? Okay Mr. Too lazy to research, where do we start?

1. IOS was first proposed to be Linux based, but then they decided to make a stripped down version of OSX. The Apple brewed concept of how to re-tool Linux into a phone OS is IDENTICAL to what Google did.... and.... Google magically hired people from Apple who had been on that project.
2. Eric Scmidt Also had inside knowledge
3. It isn't technically correct to call Android identical... I mean, it is a different OS. No one would say that IOS is that awful insult to an OS. Anroid is more like an OS on an OS which it what makes it clunky, however, all the interface concepts, frameworks, APIS, etc. were totally ripped off.
4. Android was a half baked idea that went from concept to production extremely fast... a feat not possible without having had ripped off Apple. If they'd started from scratch, Android wouldn't have hit the market for at least another two years. They were courting hardware partners before they even had a working version of the software. Things that make you go hmmm.

Apple was not first to market with a smart phone, or even a touch screen. Technically, they didn't invent multi-touch, but they did buy Fingerworks, the company who did so they yes, owned that tech. Tell me how Google, a software company (if you can even call them that really) managed to come up with all the under the hood tech that drives Android devices that fast without copying?

They bloody hired people from Apple with insider knowledge, and had their CEO on Apple's board. If you're that daft, then you fall under the protection of the stupid escape clause. They say god protects the stupid

You should read again and again to understand what he wrote. You are just giving us rhetoric. He asked what EXACTLY make Android a rip off of iOS.
Is Android a rip off just because Schmidt had inside knowledge?

You sound more like a desperate and frustrated fundamentalist trying to prove what you imagine or what a guy made think.

Nice try!

 

[samcraig]

I partly agree that it's in the least icky that they, or Facebook, has access to so much personal information about people. But to make the best search experience, you need to personalize search, and Google's that very same icky position helps them to do that.

But of course, that doesn't mean they should sell my information.

I think search should have options between personal and not personal. This is a great video that should scare everyone..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s

 

[Smoother]

Are people still arguing Xerox Parc? Off-topic is one thing, the ten thousandth rehashing of an irrelevant tu quoque piece of ancient history is getting really tiresome.

Steve Jobs, understandably perhaps, expressed a desire to "destroy" Android. Is that a plausible outcome? And if so, how would he go about doing so?

Its worth remembering that ten years ago, the hottest name in mobile phones was Nokia. Five years ago RIM and Blackberry ruled the nascent smartphone industry. Sometimes things change very quickly. Twenty years ago Microsoft dominated the PC operating systems business. They still do today. Sometimes things stay the same.

In my opinion, Android has a number of vulnerabilities.

Poor Business Model
Google doesn't make any money from Android. They DO make money from mobile search (ie. display ads that pop up when people search the mobile web.) But it is far from clear that there is anything more than a weak link between the "success" of Android in terms of activations, and the amount of money Google makes in return. Google is a wealthy, profitable company. But at some point the investors and directors are going to expect to see some return on their Android investment. I've not yet heard a plausible explanation as to how that is supposed to happen. Remember, "Revenue" is not the same as "Profit", and two thirds of "Mobile Revenue" actually comes from iOS devices.

IP Vulnerabilities
Oracle vs. Google. Microsoft vs. HTC and Samsung. Apple vs. Samsung, HTC, etc. Obviously a lot of people who know their business think that Android copied something. And quite a few Judges seem to agree. Probably not enough to "kill" Android on its own. But certainly enough to force either serious changes in the Android user experience, and more than enough to make Android partners (Samsung, HTC) question Android's value as a partner. (See "Windows Phone" below.)

China
The biggest potential market for smartphones right now is China. Its not impossible there will be 100 million smartphones there five years from now. And Google isn't the preferred search engine there (Baidu is.) What value do 50 million Chinese smartphone users (using a competitor's search engine) bring to Google?

App Store
Android's "App Store" model doesn't work. It doesn't pay enough money to developers. It doesn't keep enough junk out of the store. Its too vulnerable to malware and viruses. It suffers from fragmentation, competition, and a serious lack of curation. Google could fix some of this, but doing so would mean essentially trashing their modus operandi of the past four years.

Customer Satisfaction
Apple's iPhone consistently scores customer satisfaction ratings of 90% or so, ten to fifteen points higher than its competitors. What does this mean? It means it is going to be very, very hard for Android to convert iPhone users. It means its much easier for Apple to convert Android users to iPhone owners.

Windows Phone
Watching Google buy Motorola. And then paying Microsoft per handset licensing fees. And then having their businesses constantly under legal assault from Apple. At some point Samsung and HTC are bound to at least consider partnering up with Microsoft. Microsoft Phone doesn't have to be better than Android. It just doesn't have to suck.

Siri
Although this is still in Beta, I'm convinced this is going to be a category killer. Its so far removed from Android Voice Actions, its not even close. Google might be able to come up with something close in a year or two - but by then I think its going to be too late.

Conclusions
If Steve Jobs "screwed up" in his last five years at Apple, it was in underestimating the popularity of the iPhone. iPhone's growth was constrained by exclusive carrier contracts, and by production limitations. These created an artificial shortage, one that was met by "copycat" Android devices from Samsung and HTC.

My pal Horace Dediu has an interesting series of posts, theorizing that Apple's massive investment in Property, Plant, and Equipment over the past few years has been for machines capable of giving Apple an insurmountable advantage in mass production of iPhones. Couple a massive increase in iPhone production capacity, along with a massive increase in the number of carrier partners - these restrictions have been all but eliminated.

Look out, Android.

Interesting, but you've got to have a huge ego to think that you are smarter than Google and know better about Google than Google.

For instance if Android tries to break into the Chinese market and their government continues to "democratize" the nation, that would be a huge success for Google who sooner or later would take over the search engine market through Android. And by that adding a couple 100 million new people to their Ads. Which also would lead to Chinese people starting to use Google on their iPhones, Windows phones etc as the rest of the world. Or worst Google actually purchasing Alibaba or whatever search giants they have over there.

That might be their plan for all we know.



Google and Android is here to stay for at least 5 years. The growth is too high and the investments from App-developers, Samsung, Sony, Motorola, HTC, ZTE, Huawei (the two latter being Chinas two biggest and HTC Taiwans biggest) etc is too big for it to die in the close future.


With all that said, my point is we have no clue. If we did, we'd most likely not be posting here and instead capitalizing of this knowledge.

 

[adder7712]

Are people still arguing Xerox Parc? Off-topic is one thing, the ten thousandth rehashing of an irrelevant tu quoque piece of ancient history is getting really tiresome.

Steve Jobs, understandably perhaps, expressed a desire to "destroy" Android. Is that a plausible outcome? And if so, how would he go about doing so?

Its worth remembering that ten years ago, the hottest name in mobile phones was Nokia. Five years ago RIM and Blackberry ruled the nascent smartphone industry. Sometimes things change very quickly. Twenty years ago Microsoft dominated the PC operating systems business. They still do today. Sometimes things stay the same.

In my opinion, Android has a number of vulnerabilities.

Poor Business Model
Google doesn't make any money from Android. They DO make money from mobile search (ie. display ads that pop up when people search the mobile web.) But it is far from clear that there is anything more than a weak link between the "success" of Android in terms of activations, and the amount of money Google makes in return. Google is a wealthy, profitable company. But at some point the investors and directors are going to expect to see some return on their Android investment. I've not yet heard a plausible explanation as to how that is supposed to happen. Remember, "Revenue" is not the same as "Profit", and two thirds of "Mobile Revenue" actually comes from iOS devices.

IP Vulnerabilities
Oracle vs. Google. Microsoft vs. HTC and Samsung. Apple vs. Samsung, HTC, etc. Obviously a lot of people who know their business think that Android copied something. And quite a few Judges seem to agree. Probably not enough to "kill" Android on its own. But certainly enough to force either serious changes in the Android user experience, and more than enough to make Android partners (Samsung, HTC) question Android's value as a partner. (See "Windows Phone" below.)

China
The biggest potential market for smartphones right now is China. Its not impossible there will be 100 million smartphones there five years from now. And Google isn't the preferred search engine there (Baidu is.) What value do 50 million Chinese smartphone users (using a competitor's search engine) bring to Google?

App Store
Android's "App Store" model doesn't work. It doesn't pay enough money to developers. It doesn't keep enough junk out of the store. Its too vulnerable to malware and viruses. It suffers from fragmentation, competition, and a serious lack of curation. Google could fix some of this, but doing so would mean essentially trashing their modus operandi of the past four years.

Customer Satisfaction
Apple's iPhone consistently scores customer satisfaction ratings of 90% or so, ten to fifteen points higher than its competitors. What does this mean? It means it is going to be very, very hard for Android to convert iPhone users. It means its much easier for Apple to convert Android users to iPhone owners.

Windows Phone
Watching Google buy Motorola. And then paying Microsoft per handset licensing fees. And then having their businesses constantly under legal assault from Apple. At some point Samsung and HTC are bound to at least consider partnering up with Microsoft. Microsoft Phone doesn't have to be better than Android. It just doesn't have to suck.

Siri
Although this is still in Beta, I'm convinced this is going to be a category killer. Its so far removed from Android Voice Actions, its not even close. Google might be able to come up with something close in a year or two - but by then I think its going to be too late.

Conclusions
If Steve Jobs "screwed up" in his last five years at Apple, it was in underestimating the popularity of the iPhone. iPhone's growth was constrained by exclusive carrier contracts, and by production limitations. These created an artificial shortage, one that was met by "copycat" Android devices from Samsung and HTC.

My pal Horace Dediu has an interesting series of posts, theorizing that Apple's massive investment in Property, Plant, and Equipment over the past few years has been for machines capable of giving Apple an insurmountable advantage in mass production of iPhones. Couple a massive increase in iPhone production capacity, along with a massive increase in the number of carrier partners - these restrictions have been all but eliminated.

Look out, Android.

Look out Android? Android had already exceeded the market share of iOS in my country.

 

[Renzatic]

1. IOS was first proposed to be Linux based, but then they decided to make a stripped down version of OSX. The Apple brewed concept of how to re-tool Linux into a phone OS is IDENTICAL to what Google did.... and.... Google magically hired people from Apple who had been on that project.

Using an established open source OS to use as a foundation for your own instead of reinventing the wheel isn't exactly a novel idea. Just because Apple toyed with the idea of using Linux, only for Google to turn around and actually use Linux for their OS base, doesn't mean they ripped them off outright.

And how do you know what Apple's plans for Linux were? For all you actually know, it could've been a totally different beast to the eventual design of iOS. What proof do you have that Android is IDENTICAL to Apple's original Linux design? In all trustfulness, it probably isn't similar in the least, because...

As for Google hiring people from Apple who had previously worked on the iPhone Linux project? That's just corporate headhunting. It happens all the time. Everywhere. Constantly. If these people actually did end up using designs originally created during their employment with Apple, then Google would be facing far worse than the little penny ante BS patent disputes they're contending with now. Violations of trade secret laws, non-competes, and all that. Bad, bad stuff, in other words. All you can realistically assume is that they were hired for their expertise in that particular field, not their direct knowledge.

But whatever. Blah blah blah. Copy copy copy. You'd think that you people would think of better arguments by now. But no. It's always the same song and dance. Blah blah blah. Copy copy copy. It's getting SO old.

 

[vrDrew]

Look out Android? Android had already exceeded the market share of iOS in my country.

BUT THEY DON'T MAKE ANY MONEY THERE EITHER.

When will you people get this?

Marketshare without revenue is meaningless. Any company could very quickly get the biggest marketshare if they gave away steel, or automobiles, or bread.

Apple makes almost $80 billion a year in revenue from iOS. Google makes (maybe) $800 million a year in revenue from "mobile search" (two thirds of which comes from iOS devices.) So Google is essentially making $250 million a year in pure Android-revenue. Apple has THREE HUNDRED times that revenue from iOS.

So don't talk about "marketshare" - unless you are prepared to deal with that reality.

 

[Renzatic]

They're giving away the OS, but all the Google specific apps are licensed out. Even though they're not making money directly off Android, they're making plenty through it.

Do you think Google would be so stupid that they'd create an unsustainable market model simply to gain marketshare in the short term?

 

[kdarling]

1. IOS was first proposed to be Linux based, but then they decided to make a stripped down version of OSX. The Apple brewed concept of how to re-tool Linux into a phone OS is IDENTICAL to what Google did.... and.... Google magically hired people from Apple who had been on that project.

This is a bad mashup of different events. Recently we've found out that Apple was never serious about using Linux. No, Google did not hire anyone who had been on that project. Not that it would matter. Mobile OSs are all quite similar. For example, Apple added the idea of "freezing" apps in memory after Android had been doing that for a while.

2. Eric Scmidt Also had inside knowledge

If Schmidt was told anything... and it seems doubtful Jobs was stupid enough to give away important info when it was well known that Google was working on their own mobile OS... Apple itself has NEVER claimed that Schmidt gave inside info to Google's Android team. That's solely a forum and hit-seeking blogger claim.

Jobs only ever complained about "copying" a year or more after the iPhone had been publicly shown off. If Jobs himself never said Schmidt stole iPhone info while on the board, then why should anyone else say so?

4. Android was a half baked idea that went from concept to production extremely fast... a feat not possible without having had ripped off Apple.

The timeline is quite the opposite. The people behind Android had been making mobile OSs since 2000, phones since 2002, and had been working on Android since 2003. Apple's port of OSX into iOS didn't start until 2006, with a group that had never made a phone before.

Apple was not first to market with a smart phone, or even a touch screen. Technically, they didn't invent multi-touch, but they did buy Fingerworks, the company who did so they yes, owned that tech.

Fingerworks did not invent multi-touch, and their patents are for gestures on top of opaque surfaces like keyboards. The only relationship of Fingerworks to the iPhone is that at least one of the former Fingerworks founders later worked on iOS touch.

Tell me how Google, a software company (if you can even call them that really) managed to come up with all the under the hood tech that drives Android devices that fast without copying?

The hardware tech was there for the buying. Apple themselves used almost all off-the-shelf chips. If you mean software, there was nothing that new to work on. Can you give an example of what you mean?

If Apple was the first company to bring multitouch to a smartphone (which they were, not opinion, fact), so anyone making multitouch smartphones after them is ripping off that idea, which is my opinion of course.

The first smartphone to announce multitouch was months before the iPhone was shown off. Of course, since they weren't a big name like Apple, hardly anyone paid attention to it except those of us in the industry.

(Some people think Apple ripped them off. I do not. Everyone was working on such R&D at the time. Apple was simply the first to mass market it.)

 

[vrDrew]

Do you think Google would be so stupid that they'd create an unsustainable market model simply to gain marketshare in the short term?

Whatever money Google makes from licensing its other apps (Maps, gmail, etc.) is a pittance. A rounding error. If Google was actually making any money on it, they'd be shouting it from the treetops. Instead they hide behind b/s terms like "activations" or "mobile search revenue."

Yes, I DO think Google is that stupid. Actually I think its arrogance, or hubris, or whatever you want to call it. I think Google was so full of themselves that they didn't think this all the way through.

Tell you what: Prove me wrong. Tell me, EXACTLY, what is wrong with my analysis. Point out to me the magical revenue stream that Google is going to realize via Android that is going to make all this go away. Point to a single statement or report that shows - anywhere - that Google is making any kind of serious money from Android. You can't - because it doesn't exist.

Explain to me how Google "wins" in a situation where they make more money from every iOS activation than they do from an Android one. Explain to me how they win in a situation where Microsoft makes far more money from each Android handset than Google could ever possibly hope to make.

Microsoft recognized the value of owning the Operating System in the burgeoning PC business. But they never made of plan of giving operating systems away for nothing, losing money on every installation, and hoping to make it up in volume.

Keep voting me down. It makes me very satisfied to know how much I've made you squirm.

 

[adder7712]

Whatever money Google makes from licensing its other apps (Maps, gmail, etc.) is a pittance. A rounding error. If Google was actually making any money on it, they'd be shouting it from the treetops. Instead they hide behind b/s terms like "activations" or "mobile search revenue."

Yes, I DO think Google is that stupid. Actually I think its arrogance, or hubris, or whatever you want to call it. I think Google was so full of themselves that they didn't think this all the way through.

Tell you what: Prove me wrong. Tell me, EXACTLY, what is wrong with my analysis. Point out to me the magical revenue stream that Google is going to realize via Android that is going to make all this go away. Point to a single statement or report that shows - anywhere - that Google is making any kind of serious money from Android. You can't - because it doesn't exist.

Explain to me how Google "wins" in a situation where they make more money from every iOS activation than they do from an Android one. Explain to me how they win in a situation where Microsoft makes far more money from each Android handset than Google could ever possibly hope to make.

Microsoft recognized the value of owning the Operating System in the burgeoning PC business. But they never made of plan of giving operating systems away for nothing, losing money on every installation, and hoping to make it up in volume.

Keep voting me down. It makes me very satisfied to know how much I've made you squirm.

Do you work for Google?

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-gb; GT-I9100 Build/GINGERBREAD) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Do you think Google would be so stupid that they'd create an unsustainable market model simply to gain marketshare in the short term?

Whatever money Google makes from licensing its other apps (Maps, gmail, etc.) is a pittance. A rounding error. If Google was actually making any money on it, they'd be shouting it from the treetops. Instead they hide behind b/s terms like "activations" or "mobile search revenue."

Yes, I DO think Google is that stupid. Actually I think its arrogance, or hubris, or whatever you want to call it. I think Google was so full of themselves that they didn't think this all the way through.

Tell you what: Prove me wrong. Tell me, EXACTLY, what is wrong with my analysis. Point out to me the magical revenue stream that Google is going to realize via Android that is going to make all this go away. Point to a single statement or report that shows - anywhere - that Google is making any kind of serious money from Android. You can't - because it doesn't exist.

Explain to me how Google "wins" in a situation where they make more money from every iOS activation than they do from an Android one. Explain to me how they win in a situation where Microsoft makes far more money from each Android handset than Google could ever possibly hope to make.

Microsoft recognized the value of owning the Operating System in the burgeoning PC business. But they never made of plan of giving operating systems away for nothing, losing money on every installation, and hoping to make it up in volume.

Keep voting me down. It makes me very satisfied to know how much I've made you squirm.

I think its simple.

Google gets to syphon off a considerable amount of user data (something that is quite valuable to them) from users of Samsung, HTC, Motorola, ZTE, Heuwei et;al without ceding that information to Microsoft or Apple as they provide competing services.

Microsoft will be in exactly the same position bit with the benefit of a credible licensing deal for each WP7 licence sold (plus Android cross licencing).

What Microsoft and Google provide are vastly different beasts to what Apple is offering. I don't know why you are so insistent on comparing the two.

 

[Renzatic]

vrDrew, to sum up what Chaz said above, your problems stem from comparing apples to aardvarks.

See, Apple is, first and foremost, a hardware company. They make profit directly off every iDevice sold, which they supplement with profits garnered from iTunes and their app stores. Basically, you give them money, they get that money. It's an easy to follow system.

With Google, things are a bit more nebulous. To you and I, you could say they're primarily a service company. But their services are all given away for free, so how are they making any profit? Like Google Voice? Doesn't cost a dime. Google +? Not even a penny. Android? Up for grabs to any manufacturer who wants to use it. They do have some similarities to the Apple business model, such as taking a 30% cut off every app sold in the Android Marketplace. But beyond that, things get weird.

See, they can give away all these services, because Google primarily makes their profits off the dissemination of information. Ads, demographics, trends, raisin toast studies. These are things that advertisers and corporations are willing to pay through the nose for, which Google does an excellent job of providing them with. The end result is that the more people you have using Google services, the more money they have incoming. Android could be considered both a service in and of itself, and a gateway to all the other various Google services. That's why they make money from it, despite it not costing a dime up front.

It's a strange setup, and I'm not exactly sure how it works. But it does work. Just from a cursory glance, you can see that Google has made far, far more than the $800,000,000 you've claimed above.

What you're doing above is basically saying "well, if A gets money from C, but B gives away C for free, and goes straight to F. So how is B making any money? THEY MUST NOT MAKE ANYTHING CUZ B IS STUPID OLOL". Even from my horribly ignorant layman's perspective of economics, I can see that isn't the case at all.

Also, I'm not the one downvoting you.

 

[macsmurf]

Yes, I DO think Google is that stupid. Actually I think its arrogance, or hubris, or whatever you want to call it. I think Google was so full of themselves that they didn't think this all the way through

 

[D4F]

Whatever money Google makes from licensing its other apps (Maps, gmail, etc.) is a pittance. A rounding error. If Google was actually making any money on it, they'd be shouting it from the treetops. Instead they hide behind b/s terms like "activations" or "mobile search revenue."

Yes, I DO think Google is that stupid. Actually I think its arrogance, or hubris, or whatever you want to call it. I think Google was so full of themselves that they didn't think this all the way through.

Tell you what: Prove me wrong. Tell me, EXACTLY, what is wrong with my analysis. Point out to me the magical revenue stream that Google is going to realize via Android that is going to make all this go away. Point to a single statement or report that shows - anywhere - that Google is making any kind of serious money from Android. You can't - because it doesn't exist.

Explain to me how Google "wins" in a situation where they make more money from every iOS activation than they do from an Android one. Explain to me how they win in a situation where Microsoft makes far more money from each Android handset than Google could ever possibly hope to make.

Microsoft recognized the value of owning the Operating System in the burgeoning PC business. But they never made of plan of giving operating systems away for nothing, losing money on every installation, and hoping to make it up in volume.

Keep voting me down. It makes me very satisfied to know how much I've made you squirm.

Possession of formation is the key. You though... lack it and have no idea how it works.

 

[KnightWRX]

If Schmidt was told anything... and it seems doubtful Jobs was stupid enough to give away important info when it was well known that Google was working on their own mobile OS... Apple itself has NEVER claimed that Schmidt gave inside info to Google's Android team. That's solely a forum and hit-seeking blogger claim.

This one is so easy, I still fail to understand why people insist on tarnishing Eric's reputation. Guys gets invited with full disclosure of what's going on, and then basically gets **** on by forum goers without a shred of evidence. And they think it's fine, because "it's their opinion".

Seriously, no proof of anything and even Apple isn't going that far.