
Microsoft, Google and the Bear - Flemlord
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/microsoft-google-and-the-bear/
======
gamble
This is basically what I've been saying about Android since it was announced.
The iPhone comparisons and controversy over 'openness' were inevitable, but
Google's motivation for Android was always to prevent Microsoft from acting as
a gatekeeper for mobile search. I don't think they anticipated how quickly
MS's position in mobile operating systems would deteriorate.

------
ShabbyDoo
"That’s fine. But what are you going to do as your music experience? What will
you do for your photos experience?" [Asking this question of carriers, not
consumers]

Either this MS exec was just FUD-ing, or he really doesn't get the benefit of
an open mobile platform. Users don't want all their X "experiences" coupled
with their decisions about device and carrier (presuming that everything works
together as advertised). I want an Android phone because it keep Verizon from
limiting functionality as a means of attempting to maximize monthly
revenue/subscriber. If the market is big enough, there will be twenty good
music apps from which to choose.

What will the carriers do? Probably offer up a suite of open source apps as
defaults or sell "space" on the out-of-the-box phone to 3rd party devs who
have compelling apps. By selecting Android, carriers have already opted out of
the user extortion game, so why would they be worried about a photo
"experience"?

~~~
Maascamp
"Users don't want all their X "experiences" coupled with their decisions about
device and carrier (presuming that everything works together as advertised)"

Isn't that what made the iPhone so popular?

~~~
ShabbyDoo
I guess this is partially correct as Apple doesn't allow apps that compete
with core services. Loopt (which I have never used) is an example of my point.
Would I prefer to buy a device that is limited to a particular locate-people
service or would I like to buy a device which can run any of N competing
services?

------
joezydeco
Microsoft is looking at it from the wrong angle.

Google has been honest about the goal of Android from the beginning: to
address the billions of non-PC owning people out there that aren't using the
web and, consequently, not using Google and it's services.

Google couldn't care less if they make a red cent off of the Android platform.
What they DO care about is cornering the eyeballs and advertising dollars on
mobile platforms. Since Microsoft's core business doesn't involve selling ads,
it's totally off their radar.

~~~
GeneralMaximus
> ... to address the billions of non-PC owning people out there that aren't
> using the web and, consequently, not using Google and it's services.

Then they're doing a pretty bad job.

Here's what Google is missing. Most of those non-PC owning people broadly fall
into two categories: (1) those who live in 3rd world countries and/or cannot
afford computers and (2) people who are just afraid of technology or have no
use for it.

Selling to (2) is useless. (1) is where the money is.

Now consider a country like India. Back here, cellphones are bigger than
computers, penetration-wise. Reason: a large number of competing carriers
which results in dirt-cheap calls (the phone I use costs me about $7 a month
since most calls I make are completely free) and affordable GPRS. MTNL and
BSNL, who have a penchant for utterly destroying competitors on pricing alone,
just launched dirt-cheap 3G services. I think we all know what happens next.

What is the only barrier in the way of cheap mobile Internet? The handset. To
be precise, a 3G handset that is fast enough to render web pages and a few
basic apps. This is where Android fails. Cheapo handsets from small
manufacturers, cheap J2ME phones from LG/Samsung/Sony and Chinese clones of
high-end smartphones are pretty big here. Why buy a Rs.30K Android phone when
you can get similar functionality in a 10K unbranded Chinese phone? Or even a
15K HTC phone with Windows Mobile?

Unless Android can run on cheap, low-end handsets, I don't see it ever
becoming big with the non-PC-owning crowd.

~~~
krschultz
Today's high end handsets are tomorrows cheapo ones.

~~~
joezydeco
Ding! Give that man a cigar.

------
ellyagg
Pretty brilliant, really. Google doesn't want to be the gatekeeper, but they
don't want anyone else to be the gatekeeper either.

------
seldo
I'm not sure I buy the premise that all of Android is just a blocking move to
Microsoft. Microsoft had 10 years to make a dent in the mobile market and
failed against Nokia and RIM, and that was before Apple jumped into the game
and stomped everybody else. There was no danger of Windows Mobile, sorry,
Windows Phone getting anywhere.

If Android is a loss-making strategic move against any company, then it's
Apple -- having an open development platform in place from a credible company
like Google keeps Apple honest and open, when they would otherwise tend to
lock things down.

~~~
wmf
Google bought Android before Apple announced the iPhone, although it wouldn't
surprise me if Google changed their strategy to target Apple after seeing the
iPhone.

~~~
netsp
The point is still a good one though. The market was fractured when they
entered. It is still fractured & it doesn't seem to need Google to stay that
way.

------
roc
Google seems to be applying that strategy across several of its more-puzzling
projects. E.g. Android, Chrome, Chrome OS

------
Quarrelsome
Does Windows Mobile really end up costing so much? I'm pretty sure at the
business end of things, especially in larger deals the costs become
negligable.

The fact that these manufacturers are so eager to try out Android pretty much
illustrates how disappointed they are with WinMo/wince. It's alright but it is
kinda meh.

