

Google will abandon Android - cek
http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/03/31/google-will-abandon-android/

======
hristov
I really do not like this writing style. Everything is presented as fact,
without any attributions or reasoning or proof. This way I do not know what is
an actual fact and what is just speculation and conjecture on part of the
writer.

For example while reading the article I thought that Google had actually
announced a tablet called play. Then towards the end I started getting
suspicious, and did a Google search and seems like there is no such
announcement. Play is just a name of a marketplace as far as i can tell.

I still am not sure whether there is an announcement or a rumor of a tablet
called Play.

If you want to be taken seriously you should qualify the more drastic
assertions you are making. You can use terms like "I believe", or "so and so
announced" or "as my analysis below shows", etc. Even the more wimpy "sources
say" or "rumor has it" is better than reporting rumors as facts.

Of course it does not seem that the writer is even reporting rumors as facts
here. He is reporting wild-ass speculations or even fantasies as facts.

~~~
cek
OP here.

Totally appreciate feedback on writing style. It's valuable to me.

FWIW, though, the very first sentence of the post links to this WSJ article
about Google launching a tablet:

[http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405270230340470...](http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303404704577312043639469540-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwOTEyNDkyWj.html)

I have a (likely unfounded) bias against writing "I think..." or "I
beleive...". I think (!) it comes from being railed against by an English
teacher to be less wordy.

~~~
derekerdmann
I was always taught the same thing. Most people use "I think" or "in my
opinion" in a way that weakens their persuasive argument (what high school
students typically have to write), so forbidding it forces them to write with
confidence in their position. It's part of the formality of that type of
writing.

In contrast, blogs are much more personal. I think it's ok to say that your
statement is your opinion in that context, especially when you're writing a
prediction like this.

Personally, I like it as it is. You took a bold stance and made a radical
prediction, forcing the reader to think about how your inevitable future
contrasts with their own predictions. If only that happened more on the
internet.

------
radley
It's an interesting move but not sure how well it will work. The heft of
Android adoption was due to marketing and promotion from device manufacturers
and carriers blocked out of the new wave Apple/ATT smart phones. That
marketing heft is likely move to Win8, leaving Play in a very weak position.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Why do you expect anyone to have a significant interest in marketing Windows
8? I can think of at least half a dozen reasons why they would want to
studiously avoid it: For one thing, the impetus behind the original Android
push has expired, because now most everyone has got both Android and iOS
available as options, so there is no need to claim something new as the answer
to a competitor who has something you don't. Moreover, Windows is non-
exclusive, so even if it was something "new and different" it wouldn't be
anything your competitors can't also provide. At the same time, Microsoft's
sweetheart deal with Nokia provides a significant disincentive for non-Nokia
OEMs to push Windows. In addition to that, adding a third major platform would
increase costs for exactly the same reasons that everyone is always
complaining about Android fragmentation. And because Windows-on-ARM doesn't
run "real Windows" programs, people who bought ARM tablets expecting them to
do so will be returning them in droves, creating huge headaches for anyone who
sells them in quantity. There is also the problem of Microsoft being a bit of
a dangerous character; if other companies allow them to claim a significant
foothold in the tablet market, there is no small chance that they will
eventually be able to leverage the desktop Windows monopoly into a mobile
monopoly, which would leave the OEMs and carriers at Microsoft's mercy going
forward.

I mean why do you think nobody is pushing WP7?

------
ryanbraganza
This post is about branding, only.

~~~
cek
OP here.

Is it? Yes, the thrust of the article is about GOOG abandoning the Android
brand. However, it follows that if GOOG is to focus on Play as the brand for
tablets (and phones) they will also further invest in Play exclusive
technologies.

Today all new platform features GOOG builds are put into "Android". If they
are serious about a new brand they will start building platform features that
will NOT go into Android.

~~~
sounds
I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but perhaps as events play out I'll
prove right...

Google won't stop producing Android releases with new Android features for
manufacturers.

If they even thought it wasn't worth the effort just to hand it off to
manufacturers to destroy, they would be putting their main properties at the
mercy of two fierce competitors: Apple and Microsoft.

Android sucks. I'll talk about that in a different blog post.

Nevertheless, compared to nothing at all, Android is awesome for Google, for
the casual phone owner (have you noticed that "feature phones" are vanishing?)
- and that includes the teen demographic - and awesome for open source.

Android's open source strategy sucks too - note Honeycomb or the lack thereof.
But Google is a white knight in shining armor compared to Apple...

~~~
myko
What do you mean by lack of Honeycomb? It was released with ICS, so not in a
timely fashion (Honeycomb seemed like a rush job), but it is certainly
available.

~~~
sounds
I know the commits are in the commit log, so yeah, you can dig out Honeycomb
if you want...

I'm referring to all the drama when Honeycomb was _shipping_ on tablets but
the source wasn't released yet.

------
code_scrapping
I dislike the idea of authors submitting their own articles. It could be
argued that the point was to produce an interesting debate on the subject on
HN, but: 1) there is no news here, only speculations, which are, as hristov
said, badly put in a matter-of-fact way 2) the title is misleading to think
that the problem is in the platform, not the brand, which is in fact discussed

As far as Android branding is concerned, I would say that the brand is still
solid, it seems that the "android phone" idea is becoming widely spread (and
the only idea that can parry iPhone, since Nokia is taking a nose dive, and
Windows phone is not living up to the expectations), and changing to something
new at this point seems like a bad idea. Sure, Google could even push "Google
Tracktor" brand, but why waste all the marketing and re-starting, when you
could go with "Android certified", or similar term that will be familiar and
clearly note the prestige of the new product in some way?

~~~
drucken
It could be argued that it is you who needs to read the HN Guidelines.

If anything, your comment directly contradicts the Guidelines, while the OP's
post does not and has clearly garnered significant interest based on its
content otherwise it would not have been upvoted to the front page. Here is
the relevant Guidelines entry:

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate
for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to
its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there
is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that
you did."

------
edderly
I think this is confusing two issues.

Firstly, no matter how much various techies might desire Android to be similar
to the iPhone ecosystem and the way Apple updates it's products, it isn't
going to happen because handset manufacturers can't recoup the cost of
maintenance in the same way Apple does (via services - the AppStore / iTunes
etc).

Secondly, where there is a hint of reality in the article, Google are freaked
out by the relative success of Amazon with it's tablet offering vs the piss
poor generic Android tablet sales. Amazon and Google are in competition with
each other much more than Google is with the handset vendors so I could
understand a pure play Google tablet to compete on the basis of it's services
vs Amazon.

------
click170
I just picked up an Android phone and one of the first updates changed the
Android Market to Google Play, which first of all was very confusing, and
second of all, struck me as a desperate rebranding of the App Store at a time
when Google (I think) should have been marketing it's existing app store and
exerting control over the perversions that carriers were/are inflicting on
Android handsets, a Genuine Android certification program or something of that
sort.

