
Google has killed Android (the brand) - muratmutlu
http://www.fabcapo.com/2013/02/google-has-killed-android-brand.html
======
RyanZAG
This is a great move by Google. Android has a strange brand image going for it
- but it's definitely not a premium brand. The main problem Android is
currently facing on the consumer side is that people who have bought cheap
Android devices (especially tablets) get a (deservedly) terrible impression of
Android.

Google is fixing this in the best way possible. Instead of having a 'Windows
Phone', a 'Blackberry', an 'Apple', and an 'Android', you now have a 'Galaxy',
a 'Droid', a 'Nexus', and an 'Android' (cheap Chinese), etc.

This means that instead of Blackberry now competing against just Android and
being a go-to choice if you didn't like Android, they're now competing in mind
share with each individual manufacturer. This is going to be very bad for non-
Android, as their brand share is now being heavily diluted among countless
choices for general consumers.

Brilliant marketing play - I wonder if it's a conscious move by the Android
alliance, or it's just playing out naturally?

~~~
gbog
"Brilliant marketing play"

Maybe, but where the idealism gone? Both on HN, in tech circles, and, yes, at
Google, there was some healthy dose of idealism. You know, this thing that
make people do thing for something else than money, for the better good of
humanity for example.

Idealism (and anger) brought us Linux, Vim, the Web, etc.

And it is killing me to see Google follow the normal evolution of mammoth
corps, doing all for the brand idol, trying to launch a vast fishnet and catch
as much fish as they can to feed the idol.

Brands are not bad per se. In the old times, a good label for wine was just
the name of a family who knew how to craft wine, and same for clocks, cars,
and on. The brand was a simple hook to hang a carefully pampered reputation
vis-a-vis your clients. The core was craftmanship.

Now the reputation has become an end by itself, and one spend more time or
money building a "reputation" than crafting and selling useful (or useless)
tools. And the more reputation you have the more you need, just like power.

~~~
ForrestN
Your old impression of google was a result of branding. Google has been
heavily reliant on branding from the very beginning. Being nerdy, "don't be
evil," even being anti-marketing are all very conscious branding strategies,
emphasized over and over again in PR contexts especially. Maybe they were also
believed in as ideas within the company, but that's beside the point. They're
just changing brand strategy, not suddenly discovering branding.

~~~
bdowney
Not sure about that. Google is actually pretty bad at PR with idiots like Vic
Gundotra and Andy Rubin alienating users left and right. Eric 'creepy' Schmidt
wasn't much better and said many stupid things while he was CEO.

\-- I'm the security master.

~~~
ben1040
Just a friendly FYI since you're new: around here we don't sign our comments.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
yuhong
Yep, put this in your about instead.

------
polshaw
Why are people upvoting this inane nothing-article.

>Explain.

Ok, basically android is well known, it is not just geeks (yes there are some
technophobes that don't, but a minority IMO). It is market dominant. So no,
it's not a 'feature' any more, and google don't need to explain that their
phones have android. The phone manufacturers have always been keen to create
their own brand, over time that obviously becomes more successful. The
additional nexus brand is google's way of trying to steer the ship.

So, we knew all this stuff. Google is not actively replacing (killing) the
android brand, it's just natural evolution. There is no (more) push to use the
'google' brand like the article suggests, and obviously nexus must be a
different brand because it is a subset of android. So, this article has 0
substance, most of it is made up of just telling you normal people don't know
their phone OS, fascinating.

~~~
mhartl
I'd guess they're upvoting it because the idea sounds ridiculous before you
read the article, but after you read it you realize that it's probably right.

~~~
piyush_soni
I read the whole article and that was my first impression. It's really a
nothing article.

------
Zigurd
The name Android was inherited from a pre-product company Google bought. The
logo was copied from an old video game. Neither were intended to be a brand.
Android as a brand is a legacy of Google's geeky days. Not that that is a bad
thing. Android is a nifty fun technology, and having a name that's more fun
than "OS Flux Version 7" is good.

Android phones always had a Google logo, and the original branding strategy
was for Android to be in the background behind names like "Droid." Android
only became a brand because Google has so much more mind-share than mobile
OEMs.

Android fading as a brand is, at best, a a sign that the Google ecosystem and
OEM brands like Galaxy are coming to the foreground. At worst, it is a sign
that Google has lost control of branding and that the Nexus brand has been
rolled out too slowly.

One problem Google faces is that OEM brands come with OEM bloatware that is
90% useless. Samsung's mobile device management extensions are the only OEM
"innovation" I can think of that is actually a useful improvement. While there
is nothing wrong with pre-loading thoughtfully curated software, there ought
to be a "reset to Nexus state" icon on every Android's home screen. Conflating
OEM bloatware with brands is a very bad outcome.

------
inerte
It's interesting to compare with other devices. Consumers buy:

\- a Windows (version) machine. Not Microsoft, not just Windows. But Windows
98, Windows XP, Windows 8

\- A (hardware manufacter), with Windows (version), like a Dell PC with
Windows XP. Few buy an specific hardware manufacturer brand without caring for
the operating system.

\- A Mac. Not a Mac OS X, not an Apple machine. Some do know the feline

\- An iPhone (model), an iPad

\- A Blackberry. Not RIM, not Blackberry (version)

\- A Nokia (model)

The only operating system there is Windows, along with its version. Maybe
because only Samsung managed to be seen as a quality product using Android,
Google is killing the brand. The different apps, settings and behaviour
depending on the hardware manufacturer and carrier only make the situation
worse. My Android, version whatever, is very different from my friend's
Android. Maybe if Google had enforced uniformity, things would have been
different. There's no Windows XP from IBM, or Windows XP from Dell. On the
other hand, maybe fewer companies would have shipped Android if they could not
customize it.

This looks like a business failure to me. It would be better for Google to
have its operating system installed in as many devices as possible, and
consumers actually buying it because they specifically want Android, with its
Google apps and services. MS managed to do it, and I bet Google wanted, but
they are giving up. But unlike MS, Google does not sell software, so I guess
as long as people are still providing information for ads, it's a good
situation for Google.

------
Lexarius
When Google first announced the Android OS, my first thought (after "that's
silly") was "What will Google do when they want to release a line of actual
androids?".

Deep down, I'm hoping they're de-emphasizing the Android brand so that they
can re-use the name, like Microsoft did with Surface. Announcing Google
Android, the internet-connected humanoid assistant you never knew you needed.

~~~
dhimes
The best part is it will already know everything about you.

~~~
sigzero
Do I hear the sarcasm in that post? :)

~~~
skore
Reminds me of the image jokes on Google+ signup screens. Subtitle: Very funny
google, asking me about data that you already know.

------
CJefferson
My initial instinct seeing this title was "what complete rubbish", but on
reading the article they have a point.

If you want more convincing, go to the google nexus pages, and see how many
references to Android you can find, and where they are. Certainly you can find
Android mentioned, but not on the main page, and not prominently.

~~~
pefavre
Here's the Nexus 4 page: <http://www.google.com/nexus/4/> Indeed, Google is
everywhere, and Android is mentioned at the very bottom.

------
MatthewPhillips
I don't recall there ever being much branding effort on Android. Perhaps there
is less today, I won't try to argue that, but from the start it was the HTC G1
with Google. Manufacturers have never wanted to embrace the Android brand as
that turns them into mere part assemblers. The only time I see Android brand
being used is on low-end phones where they want to get the point across that
it is backed by a good ecosystem.

Here's the Nexus One sites, also no Android to speak of:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20100319002511/http://www.google....](http://web.archive.org/web/20100319002511/http://www.google.com/phone)

~~~
mimiflynn
I got a little Android wind-up walking green robot at a conference... seemed
like that little green robot was on everything for a while. I feel like they
worked on the brand just enough and then, when their experiment was sucessful,
they decided to go ahead and bring the product into the fold. If Android had
failed, it would be easy to forget (for the general public, not for devs or
techies) that it was even part of Google.

------
runjake
As far as I knew, this was the goal of the Open Handset Alliance -- build a
technology called Android that other members could use in the development of
their own technologies.

Android was always supposed to sit in the background -- somewhat similarly to
how WebKit works. It's not "WebKit", it's Chrome, Safari, Opera Browser, etc
etc.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but "Android" is a brand that strikes me
as not appealing to the masses.

------
damian2000
Yeah, this article makes sense. It seems like the first 'phase' of Android
marketing was all about getting phone companies to support it and to achieve
market dominance. They've achieved that, and can now focus on making Google
phones/tablets a premium brand.

------
ericcholis
The "man on the street" test says the same, many people call their Android
phones "Droid" regardless of manufacturer. "Droid" has become generic and
synonymous with the hardware, not the platform. With that being said, can you
blame them? Non-tech folk might love their Android phone, but I doubt that
they care about the platform.

~~~
justincormack
Only in the US. The "Droid" name never launched globally, for licensing
reasons.

------
icoder
I think two things are getting mixed up here: 1) what Google does/wants
(apparently, they don't want it anymore, which is the interesting part of the
article) and 2) what the people perceive (Android vs iPhone). The article
itself states it at the end, who knows iOS? Mostly geeks, I agree. But who
knows Android? Everyone and their mom. Google is not simply going to null
this, and I don't think they should either, but that is another story.

~~~
blowski
Do you have stats to back that up? Recent surveys say that people are more
likely to describe their phone as 'Samsung' than Android.
[http://news.techeye.net/mobile/samsung-galaxy-brand-
trumps-a...](http://news.techeye.net/mobile/samsung-galaxy-brand-trumps-
android-in-popularity-contest)

Anecdotally, I would agree that the kind of people who know what Android is
are the kind of people that know what iOS is - i.e. gadget-lovers.

~~~
PuercoPop
That the most salient feature used to describe their phone is Samsung, does
not imply in any way that they are unaware that it is an android.

As anecdotal evidence, every non geek that I know, knows about android.

------
jusben1369
Perhaps Google saw companies like Amazon launch an "Android Tablet" and become
players overnight riding on the coat tails of all that hard work Google did
around that brand. Imagine if you could somehow launch an 'iOS tablet" or
"Smart phone" and ride those coat tails? I _think_ that's the biggest problem
with continuing to invest time and energy improving the Android brand vs your
own.

------
treskot
And that (in ref to the last few paragraphs of the article) might turn out to
be a good thing. Google knows what it is upto. Unless it really wants Android
to be recognized as Galaxy then God save Android.

So is 'open source' the problem here? -- "sell an "Android phone" makes you a
cheap commodity play. Nobody wants that, they all want to be cool and
different. Leave Android to the Chinese knock-offs."

~~~
Anechoic
_Unless it really wants Android to be recognized as Galaxy then God save
Android._

A few weeks ago I heard a CNN reporter refer to the "iPad and Galaxy
ecosystems." I wonder if it's already too late.

~~~
blowski
There's also the Amazon App Store for Android. People I know with Kindle Fires
just talking about 'downloading apps from Amazon'. I don't think they know
what Android is.

------
rogerbinns
It is interesting to look at the selection of phones available at Walmart
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/bgdvobh>

Android is only mentioned some of time even for Android phones, and it is
always out of date versions (usually the 18+ month old 2.3 versions). Even the
feature phones are dressed up to look like they are smartphones (eg similar
launcher layout). Asymco talk about this in more detail in this episode
<http://5by5.tv/criticalpath/69> and posting
<http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/03/the-last-featurephone/>

What can be deduced is that some people just use their phones for calls and
texting, and that those phones are increasingly running old Android versions.

------
stinky613
If Lucas hadn't had the (absurd?) trademark on "droid" I think "Droid OS"
would have been easier to market. Though, even then, there were other issues.

The move to drop "Android" makes sense. "Google" is a name that people
generally trust (despite the efforts of MS's petty 'Scroogled' campaign).

"Android", on the other hand, has come to represent a disjointed
conglomeration of smartphones. The OS versions are inconsistent between phones
and have names that give no indication of chronology. Reach into a bag of
current Android phones and pull out two at random--you have no idea what to
expect. Certainly Microsoft deliberately avoided this specific pitfall in
their design of Windows Phone 8.

Motorola jumping early into the fray with "Droid" phones running "Android"
likely added confusion.

~~~
rz2k
Why was the Scroogled campaign petty?

~~~
stinky613
Fair question; I guess petty was the wrong word. Also, after youtubing
'scroogled' to make sure what I'm about to say is accurate I found there are
other scroogled ads that don't irk me as much.

The ad I've seen the most criticizes gmail. The guy says "these ads just
showed up" and the woman says "ACTUALLY,...", and, personally, when someone
corrects a person by starting out with that heavily emphasized "ACTUALLY..."
it sounds really smug.

------
PaulHoule
It's better than Microsoft, which still doesn't have a name for Metro or
whatever it is that is in Windows 8 that nobody uses.

------
keyboardP
Unlike MS and Apple's services, Google doesn't need Android to be a brand. I
think it was quite clear from the beginning that their aim isn't to ship
devices for the sake of spreading Android rather than to ship devices for the
sake of spreading their online services and increasing ad revenue streams. I
don't think this whole premise that the Android brand is being diluted/removed
is anything new nor surprising.

------
7952
This trend is also mirrored in the "Google Play" branding. The Google app and
data syncing should be a huge selling point for the ecosystem in general.

------
mtgx
I think Google messed up badly early on by not putting marketing muscle behind
the Android brand, which was also a side effect of how they treated Android
itself.

They let Android be turned into whatever others wanted it to be, and maybe
they promoted the Android brand, maybe they didn't. And if they did, they
tried to "own" it. But mostly they've tried to mention it as little as
possible, while promoting their own stuff.

Google _should've never let this happen_. They should've treated it the same
way they treat the Chromebooks. Nothing gets changed in ChromeOS unless Google
says so. And everything works the same across Chromebooks. All upgrades come
from Google for all Chromebooks, and every 6 weeks. It's tight and it's clean.
And they get to promote the brand.

But Android is the opposite of that. Google has no control over 99% of the
Android devices when it comes to upgrades. This is terrible for users,
terrible for developers, and terrible for the security of these devices,
whenever there's some big security exploit. Okay, Google can still uninstall
apps from your phone in case something like that happens, but they can't
really fix the issue usually.

Android should've been run like Chrome and ChromeOS from the very beginning.
They should've had the "main brand" (like Chrome), and then they should've had
the "open source brand" (like Chromium). Google only ever promotes the Chrome
brand, and now that's what OEM's and customers want. They want Chrome. They
don't want Chromium.

They missed that opportunity with Android. Android should've been the main
bran that Google owns, gets to modify, and updates. If they would've done that
from the beginning, then OEM's and customers would've also wanted the
unaltered Google-owned Android, rather than the "heavily-customized open
source brand" that Android has turned into, and is the main choice for
virtually every OEM. So the Android world is like a bizarro world where
"Chromium" would be what most OEM's and customer want, not Google's own
Chrome.

But there is still time to fix that - by expanding the "Chromebook-tight"
Nexus program. Get Nexus become to Android what Chrome is to Chromium. And
then try to make 99% of OEM's and customers to prefer the Nexus over the
heavily-customized open source "Android". This will probably take 5 years or
longer now, but I think it can be done. Even if half of the market is "Nexus
devices" 5 years from now, I think it will be worth it.

Of course it would've been much easier to do this from day one, since now they
have to fight and uphill battle, and "unconvince" OEM's that they want to use
the "Nexus OS"/stock Android, not their own customized stuff. But slowly, they
can convince customers to buy those, and in time the OEM's as well, if that's
what the people want.

So if they are indeed applying this strategy, then that's good. I've noticed
they are promoting the Nexus devices lately. Now they just need to get more
OEM's on board (not just one at a time). That would give people more choices
through out the year for Nexus devices. Some may like the Nexus, but if they
want to buy a new phone 4 months later, they might just get the latest Samsung
or HTC device, because they'd still prefer a newer phone.

This also needs to happen for low-end devices. I want to be able to buy my mom
a very cheap Nexus phone. I'm thinking $100-$200 range here. It can be done
with Cortex A7, a decent 720p capable GPU, and a 800x480 resolution display.
It should be good enough performance wise, but Google should still make sure
these devices aren't very buggy or something. And they should handle the
updates for them.

A good way to start pushing more "Nexus" devices in the market is by getting
Motorola to use only stock Android. I think they'd be really stupid if they
aren't doing this. Their customers _want_ them to do it. _Screw_ the other
OEM's if they get upset about it. They're free to join the Nexus program (and
they should be), and use stock Android, too. They'll come around if Motorola
shows there's a market for that. So Google needs to stop fooling around, and
start being serious taking back control of Android with the Nexus OS/program.

~~~
untog
You're ignoring the other half of this equation- the device manufacturers. The
reason they adopted Android so heavily was _because_ it was a more open system
that let them customise it and make it their own. If Google ruled it with an
iron fist people would have been far less interested in adopting it.

As for customers wanting Nexus phones- I'm not convinced they do. A core of
customers do, of course (and I am one of them), but the vast majority are
happy with their Samsung Galaxies and their HTC Ones. They don't care about
'stock'. If Motorola use stock Android I think they'll demonstrate that users
_don't_ want it (or, don't active prefer it), as the Galaxy S4 dominates the
market.

~~~
mtgx
I get that, but if Google would've done a better job of promoting Android, I
think they could've had more control over it in the end. But it's almost like
Google _didn't want_ control over Android.

As for upgrades, I don't think it would've been that hard to get the Open
Handset Alliance to agree to keep things relatively compatible with each
other, and let them handle the upgrades, and save them that cost. I just think
Google didn't want to do that at the time, maybe because they thought it was
too much work, and they didn't think Android would get that successful or
something.

They could've set a clear set of standards, and they could've built a power
theming engine to allow manufacturers to do some relative customization of the
devices so they look different enough, if they really wanted to go that route,
while still making it easy for them to upgrade them.

~~~
jahmed
Google undercut Apple. Google couldn't let Apple take all of mobile because
that's where computing is going. No one was even close to where Apple was then
and its taken android years to catch up. Thats the first reason.

Second, Google is a team player. The web is more profitable for everyone when
things are open and free. Everyone is better off with a smaller slice of a
bigger pie. Android has made a lot of people a lot of money.

------
mattmaroon
Having two brands does not necessarily confuse consumers. People understand
that Dell makes Windows PCs. They'll understand that Samsung makes Android
smart phones.

Apple itself has numerous brands. Apple and Mac OS, running on a Macbook Air
or Macbook Pro. That's no more confusing than anyone can handle.

------
paragonred
I'm not sure it is as deliberate as is being suggested. I think renaming the
store allows it to potentially function for all types of devices, not just
android devices.

Also, if you look at the play store on a device or the web, you generally see
the android character all over it.

------
lnanek2
What's scary is that people don't go into a store and buy Android. They buy
Droid or Evo or Galaxy or HTC One or Razor, etc.. What's to keep Galaxy from
staying with Android then? If they lost 10% market for going their own way,
but captured the full profit of replacing Google Play entirely with Samsung
Apps store, it may still be a good business decision for them.

You can already see this happening a little because Samsung requires using
their ad library, their in app purchase library, not mentioning Google Play at
all in descriptions or for pro versions, etc. to publish on Samsung Apps. The
store isn't as good as Google Play, but it sure is more profitable for Samsung
than Google Play.

------
qompiler
There is a penguin in that Android suit, I don't think it really cares. :o)

~~~
daliusd
And it is not alone in there. Antelope that cares is in there.

~~~
wtracy
Is that a reference that I'm not familiar with?

~~~
daliusd
Gnu is antelope.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy>

------
pedalpete
The comparison I'm thinking is that google is trying to be more Intel than
Microsoft.

Intel did the whole 'intel inside' thing, and people recognized the brand,
without really understanding what it was for or caring, they just knew that is
what they wanted.

People thought they understood what Microsoft did (and maybe they do), but I
think intel was just this thing you absolutely had to have. Nobody could
compete with it, because they'd need to explain what it does, and that would
likely put people to sleep and they wouldn't understand anyway.

------
venomsnake
Maybe we are beyond the point where OS can be considered sexy anymore. While
there will always be insane amounts of work to be done on them and deliver
improvements until we see some brand new device interaction paradigm delivered
- OSs will be boring, (relatively) stable and getting job done.

So - there are few reasons to push the OS as a brand to retail consumers.
Pitch hard to developers, but for consumers for which the os is app store +
launcher - it won't help you increase sales much.

~~~
macspoofing
Actually it's all about the OS. The apps work everywhere, and the hardware is
largely the same.

------
saurik
> Who knows the word iOS? Nobody (oh, you do, but you are a geek).

I run into this problem constantly, as I want to refer to "devices that run
iOS", but I know that that is a reference that a large number of people won't
understand. I often find myself saying "iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch", which
always feels exceedingly awkward. Does anyone know of a better way for me to
do this? Am I simply doomed to permanently listing off, individually, all of
these products? ;P

~~~
unavoidable
"iDevice" seems to be a useful word I hear a lot these days.

------
stevenameyer
Android as a brand is becoming less emphasized because it is meaning less and
less as time goes on. There are so many different android devices out there
that deliver vastly different experiences that really the only thing that
Android means to most people is they have access to Android apps. So since the
term is so broad that for classification it is basically useless we need to
turn to different terms to be able to describe a product.

------
bdcravens
The first time I realized this was the direction things were going was when
the Fire was released. On Amazon's page, I saw only one mention of "Android",
and that was referring to the "Amazon App Store for Android". The current page
only has one other reference (referring to the Amazon app for movies, in a
list of other OS's where it's compatible). The focus in both cases being on
Amazon, _not_ Android.

------
emmelaich
Feels right to me; I've bought a few Android devices and have only liked the
Google ones. Non-Google Android phones often have what I would call malware
installed by the manufacturer or the communications provider.

e.g. a flashlight app on Huawei G600 which has excessive permissions including
reading contacts _and_ starts on boot.

------
ActVen
Searches for "android" started trending down in January 2012.
[http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=android%2C%20nexus...](http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=android%2C%20nexus&geo=US&date=1%2F2008%2061m&cmpt=q)

------
glogla
It's not all that suprising. Ubuntu is doing the same with Linux brand -- they
hide what the system actually is, perhaps in fear that people might recognize
that there are other distributions and run off, or because Linux has bad
publicity as geeky stuff.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"or because Linux has bad publicity as geeky stuff"_

No, more like Linux has bad publicity as obtuse and difficult - which it very
often is with many other distros. Ubuntu is (intended to be) Linux that "just
works".

I don't think Canonical is afraid of "oh no Linux, nerds!", they're more
likely afraid of "oh no Linux, like [insert other distro where you spend more
time tweaking configs and compiling your kernel than using it]!"

------
dottrap
_However, having two brands confuses consumers._

Doesn't hold true. "Microsoft" had no problems with users being confused by
"Windows". People went out of their way to make sure to buy PCs installed with
Windows from Dell, HP, etc.

~~~
damian2000
The major difference is that Windows wasn't free and in fact was expensive for
manufacturers, as is Windows Phone.

~~~
corresation
_as is Windows Phone_

From a pure financial basis I would wager good money that Android is more
expensive for manufacturers than Windows Phone is, _not even including the
Microsoft patent tax_ (where it most certainly is more expensive for any
vendor who signed on), in the same way that Linux was actually more expensive
for Dell to put on a laptop than a full copy of Windows was.

When Samsung or Motorola or HTC or LG decide to go with Android they commit
themselves to significant software engineering expenses. Those who try to
under-fund those activities suffer in the market (Motorola and Sony being two
prime examples).

Windows Phone, in contrast, is built to put the vast majority of the software
engineering costs on Microsoft's side, and the activities required by a
hardware vendor are dramatically reduced.

I only mention this because there's a recurring, very detached from reality
theme that vendors choose Android because it is "free" (excluding the
possibility that vendors have to license the non-ASOP Google apps and
services). That might be true for the cheapest of the cheap devices, but it is
completely untrue for the top tier makers.

~~~
vetinari
Depends.

The price for moving all the porting effort to Microsoft is inflexibility. For
example, WP7 supported only Qualcomm SoC and nothing else. Meanwhile, in the
Android world, the vendors (mostly SoC vendors) had to do engineering, but
they could use Exynos or Tegra or any other SoC they wanted.

Another significant part of the engineering is customization. It is not that
we, the geeks, want the manufacturers to customize their Android builds (see
the popularity of the Nexus and AOSP builds for other phones). But they have a
choice and they chose to do it. In the Windows world, they don't have such a
choice.

So it is not a black/white. It is a set of compromises and constrains on a
curve. It is up to a vendor to pick the optimal point, after weighting costs
and benefits.

------
dinkumthinkum
I disagree, regular people do know "Android." Many people that are not "geeks"
know that phones are basically iPhone vs Android (they may or may not think of
"iOS" but Android is out there).

------
shmerl
I never liked the brand name. These days when people mention Android, you
don't expect them to talk about robotics, but rather about Google's OS which
has nothing to do with androids.

------
_quasimodo
They might become the Microsoft of the mobile market.

You buy a PC (as opposed to a Mac) -> It runs Windows

You buy a phone (as opposed to an iPhone)-> It runs Android

I hope that doesn't happen, though.

------
CaRDiaK
Having been in bed with it since day 1... it will always be Android to me :)

------
cek
I wrote a similar piece predicting this would happen last March.
[http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/03/31/google-will-abandon-
andr...](http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/03/31/google-will-abandon-android/)

------
donnfelker
Link bait 101.

