Every time I see an android phone I get impressed and it is slowly going to win me over even though I was such a strong fan of Apple or still am quite considerably. Just have to live with the fact that I am supporting a shoddy company. I use their email afterall
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Walter Isaacson Says Jobs' Rage Over Android Was Real
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Never say never, Google could make a 180 and bring forth a strong 'ecosystem' (god I hate that term). The problem with Google is that they have *so many* services (which is great, i use a lot of them) but all of them are completely different. It's as if every aspect of google is run by people on a completely different page. For instance;
https://play.google.com/
Looks 'OK' though still a bit on the amateurish design of a somewhat typical/random online store. The design could use some work, but it doesnt say much in terms of 'this is google'
Now lets look at another google page;
http://www.google.ca/intl/en/options/
Jesus, looks like something that came out of 1997.
Ok, lets try:
http://maps.google.ca/
Now compare that and the others to the rest of Google's services; email, news, earth, youtube, etc. THATS where everything is actually 'fragmented' where an Apple fanboy would have a case for their argument. Nothing from Google looks like anything else. All of its difficult to distinguish. They *badly* need to have all of their divisions sit down with a lead designer to direct them how all of their services are going to look. Right now its a NIGHTMARE.
What you say is true.
But for Google to develop a strong Android "ecosystem" would essentially require them to completely reverse their existing business model. Something I can't see them doing.
The Android business-model is built on the pillars of "open-source" and ad-impressions. Neither of which are compatible with the sort of network effects that lead to a healthy growth of eco-system. For example, as long as the Android source-code is open-source, there is no practical manner for Google to control, or prevent, its handset or carrier partners from grafting their own unique "skin" on top of whatever Android version is most current. More damaging, there is no means of ensuring that all Android handsets get timely upgrades. With the result that there are probably (at least) a half-dozen different releases, with different capabilities, extant at any one time.
The "ad-impression" as a means of paying for all this presents problems too. Google certainly has the cash, to say nothing of the volume, to at least break-even on its Android investment. (A half-billion Android users, each generating $3-4 a year in click revenue.) And that model also works fine for the top App makers: Angry Birds and the like. But it most certainly doesn't work for the lower tier of Apps. The sort of specialized, niche application that - at best - is going to get 50 or a hundred thousand downloads. Without a couple hundred thousand dollars in customer payment, those App makers are never going to cover their costs. Meaning the Android marketplace sees a very sharp drop-off in quality.
It appears to me that Google's top management has slightly different priorities than that of most other large companies. Why else would they be funding projects like Google's self-driving cars, or Google's enhanced-reality glasses. (Such projects are never likely to bring Google much return. If a self-driving car becomes the norm, it will be made by Toyota or Mercedes-Benz)
But Larry Page and Sergei Brinn would rather go down in history as the guys who made those miracles happen. They've already made their billions. So all thats left for them to do is fund projects like that, with the hope that history books will remember them as the guys who funded the research that made it all possible.
One of the least intelligent comments on this Forum And you have much competition.
I agree. The notion of a centralized ecosystem at least in part runs contrast against how Google makes its money.
I'd say two things. Google loves presenting themselves as a geek-friendly corporation which helps them getting the top talents out of engineering and CS programs. I believe this also explains why they emphasized "open" so much when they have been closely guarding their true money-making recipes in their search and server-side infrastructure, which in turn also explains why Facebook open sourced their server hardware of all things.
Another reason might be that self-driving cars and enhanced-reality glasses represent the future possibilities for physical world extension of Google's data-mining and online ads. The possibilities are endless and also scary how much information Google could gather by looking at our real life travel patterns and what we do.
The people this seems to matter most to are iPhone supporters, who are used to needing OS upgrades in order to have the latest capabilities... or not, depending on how much Apple wants us to buy the next model.
Android is a quite different situation from iOS, as Android has had all the primary capabilities (voice, video, multitasking, folders, etc) since almost version one. So there's not as much need for an upgrade for a phone. And even fragments for tablets is available as a library for older devices.
Android's upgrades are mostly about looks and speed, whereas iOS upgrades are often about adding basic functionality.
Moreover, Android phones always have the latest versions of important apps like Google Navigation, Maps, Search, because those things don't require an OS upgrade. Even integrating something like Facebook is easy to do on Android without needing an OS change. That's just the way Android was designed.
Finally, there are so many alternative themes and launchers for Android, that what a phone comes with (e.g. Sense or TouchWiz) isn't that important either... and the alternatives don't require jailbreaking (rooting) to install.
The upshot is, it's just not possible to directly compare Android upgrades with the so-called same-version iOS upgrades (which, even with the same version number, have not so common capabilities between iOS devices).
Last edited:
although I'm late to this thread ... I'm VERY curious how you propose to prove just how: Windows Mobile Standard/Professional, Palm OS (any iteration by any licensee), or even Symbian (S60 any version, UIQ or that Chinese/Japenese only version) was on its way, or making roads to a unified system?!?!
I'd also like to see just how this proof relates to prior to MP3's or just after the initial 2/3yr growth of MP3s and consumption of such went beyond 1/2GB, prior to SoundMonkey (a cross platform MP3 player), when nobody in their right mind was stupid enough to pay $5+ to purchase MP3s for downloading vs spending countless minutes/hours each week sorting through downloaded MP3s that didn't suddenly spike the levels with a sound that belonged from a transformer?!
Without a unified store platform - Symbian tried this just a few months BEFORE Apple's iTunes had "The App Store" - I know because I tried to work with the CEO of Symbain-Foundation and many others to try to collect so many applications and categorize them, along with vendors for version support: it was fruitless and just quite simply daunting if not impossible.
PS: you might recall that Symbian for the longest time was THE OLDEST and most popular Mobile smartphone OS globally until the past 15 months; an evolution of EPOC.
"ecosystem" means "walled garden"
Apple's "ecosystem" is just "newspeak" for "walled garden" - so it deserves the hate.
Apple's "ecosystem" is just "newspeak" for "walled garden" - so it deserves the hate.
"ecosystem" is a term that's been around for years and years. In fact Steve Jobs uses the term in his 1997 Macworld Expo speech. "walled garden" is just a particular term that describes Apple's approach and ecosystem isn't just some made up term for iOS.
True, but "'ecosystem' is just 'newspeak' for 'walled garden'" is also true.
To call Apple's walled garden a "walled garden" has a negative connotation, so the spin-meisters started calling it an "ecosystem". Now all the fans and fellow-travelers in the media say "ecosystem" - as if that were a good thing.
What??? Ecosystem is just an ecosystem, a term that's been around for years and used by everyone. It's a commonly used term and I don't know why you'd object to the use of that term when everyone uses it, even those outside Apple.
Here's Stephen Elop of Nokia using the term, asking for a better ecosystem for Nokia. He also describes Apple's "walled garden"(as you put it) as "a closed, but very powerful ecosystem."
Here's Google's Schmidt using the term, discussing Android's ecosystem
Here's Steve Balmer using the term, discussing Windows Phone's ecosystem.
Here's RIM using the term, discussing BlackBerry/PlayBook ecosystem.
If you really want to put some negative connotation, call it "the dark sphere controlled by the evil ghost of Steve Jobs" or something instead of objecting against a widely used and accepted term. Insisting "walled garden" is the correct name for Apple's ecosystem sounds like those crazies that "USA" should be called "Evil Empire"
I don't "object" to the term "ecosystem" as much as wanting to point out that it is being used as a more palatable synonym for "walled garden".
A "smartphone ecosystem" would be nice. Why can't an app run on Android and IOS and Win7 and ...
An "IOS ecosystem" is a walled garden.
I am afraid it is not a hearsay. I believe it is true. To live is to change the world. This is Steve Jobs. He is as great as Edison, Einstein.
You know, I have a modicum of respect for ole Steve. He was a helluva marketer, probably one of the best we've seen in a good long while. He knew how to pick the right people for the right job. And his attention to detail was second to none
But I can't compare him to Einstein. Sorry. When it comes right down to it, what Steve did was take a whole bunch of talented people, brought them together under a single roof, then screamed at them until they produced something awesome out of spite. You could argue that he knew the landscape of the future, but he didn't build it himself. He got other people of similar mind together, then marketed it.
Einstein gave us the Theory of Relativity cuz he was bored at the patent office one day.
And if he's like Edison, it makes me wonder who his Tesla counterpart is, cuz that's the guy who's coming up with the really cool stuff.
Um, you do know that touchscreen phones existed for SIX YEARS before the first iPhone, right?
Apple didn't invent the touchscreen phone, Handspring did. The concept was then copied by many other manufacturers, including a relative latecomer to the game called Apple.
What Apple did brilliantly was two things. First, an excellent implementation of the concept. Second, marketing, to the extent that many people believe Apple invented the product category. Touchscreen phones were a bit of a geek thing until Apple came along and introduced them to the mass market.
the world benefits from innovations, but they are not meant to be the only and best solution for the rest of all times.
if apple cares about the planet's or people's "welfare" they stop attacking the android solution. instead they should be thankful by having driven the smartphone world into a certain direction - they get credited for it all around the globe. but now thats also a history merit. now further improvement have to be made.
and to be honest, im a long time apple user but im switching to android now.
if you have an android phone and get an iphone or an ipad in your hand it feels similar like back in the days when you permanently searched for the right mouse click on the mac.
plus im a mobile me user and apple doesnt allow me to update to an updated adressbook version if i dont update my whole operating system! thats so crazy and thats where they lose me. they prove that this doesnt have to be by providing a software solution to windows users. why is there no software solution for 10.6.8 users? i dont want to be forced to update all the time. i have a fragile system i make music with and thats my profession, having to update is a permanent cause for grey hairs as those updates always mean certain plug ins wont run any more - and i have a crack-free machine! there is no solution for this other than using google stuff.
if apple cares about the planet's or people's "welfare" they stop attacking the android solution. instead they should be thankful by having driven the smartphone world into a certain direction - they get credited for it all around the globe. but now thats also a history merit. now further improvement have to be made.
and to be honest, im a long time apple user but im switching to android now.
if you have an android phone and get an iphone or an ipad in your hand it feels similar like back in the days when you permanently searched for the right mouse click on the mac.
plus im a mobile me user and apple doesnt allow me to update to an updated adressbook version if i dont update my whole operating system! thats so crazy and thats where they lose me. they prove that this doesnt have to be by providing a software solution to windows users. why is there no software solution for 10.6.8 users? i dont want to be forced to update all the time. i have a fragile system i make music with and thats my profession, having to update is a permanent cause for grey hairs as those updates always mean certain plug ins wont run any more - and i have a crack-free machine! there is no solution for this other than using google stuff.
Ah, the old "its not a bug, its a feature" response.
Regardless of how valid, or not, that assertion may be - the fact of the matter is that, by almost every reasonable measure, Android simply isn't developing its ecosystem in a particularly healthy manner. Despite, in some markets, shipping twice as many units as iOS, its still lags, significantly in web-traffic measuring, ad impressions, and the like. And even the staunchest Android advocate has to admit paid App purchases on Android are a tiny fraction of those on iOS. Its the same "possession without utilization" trap that is leading, as we speak, to RIM's marketshare collapse.
is this lack of "utilization" the fault of OS fragmentation, or some other cause, or combination of causes? I don't know. But pretending that Android's fragmented and laissez faire approach to building an ecosystem is helpful to anyone (including Google) is misguided.
I don't know. This is what needs to be figured out. Because if there is a way, there'd be a lot of advantages.
But it's not easy.