I'd think twice before going to war with Google. Samsung's phones aren't as much better than Motorola as Samsung seems to think they are. It isn't hard to see Google pumping the next Razr model with significant advertising dollars and claiming the crown for best selling Android smartphone for itself. Remember how fast Chrome beat out Firefox and and IE?
Samsung should have been content slipping under Google's radar and riding that wave. I can't see how poking the Google beast is a good idea.
Fighting Google is the lesser of several evils. There are three companies doing serious mobile business: Apple, Amazon, and Samsung. All of them are at war with Google one way or another.
Everyone playing "nice" with Google is losing money and/or insignificant. They're going down the same road that the PC vendors went down playing by Microsoft's rules. It looked like a different game at the outset because Google wasn't charging them an $80 tax on each device. But the end result is the same, they are being commoditized into irrelevance.
This might sound crazy, but it seems that Google are trying to do the same to Apple as well. Obviously they won't switch to Android, but most consumers don't really care about the OS. Nobody can replace Google's apps - Apple can't, Samsung will fail if/when they try.
By placing their apps on iOS, and essentially being the best of breed in every category, the long game seems to be to relegate Apple into the realm of the Android OEM. When it comes time for average iOS consumer to replace his phone, if Google have managed to push enough apps on him, he probably cares more about them than iOS. If Google can play it right, they might be able to make choosing a phone choosing your favourite front for Google apps, with no revenue difference either way.
They're not there yet, but it looks like they want to be. If Samsung, Apple, whoever has market share don't move fast, and Google play it right, they could all become fronts for Google's apps. And then the market share just shifts around between the current best front for Google's apps.
Have you never used the Google apps on the iOS before ?
They are good but not significantly better than Apple's built in ones. Apple Maps may have less quality data but has a much better UI and uses a lot less data. Google Now is pointless compared to the genuinely useful Android version. Chrome is slower in most cases than Safari and not integrated with the rest of the OS. And really all their other apps simply aren't popular.
Unfortunately Apple just doesn't give third party apps any room to expand beyond its tiny little sandbox.
> They are good but not significantly better than Apple's built in ones.
I guess I'll agree to disagree here. Apple's first party apps significantly behind Google's in my opinion.
> Unfortunately Apple just doesn't give third party apps any room to expand beyond its tiny little sandbox.
This is unfortunate, but it looks like Google is working hard to make its own applications interop nicely and directly, even with the limited capability iOS provides for this.
Sure. I find the Mail app to be ugly when compared to Gmail and more frustrating to use. Chrome seems to handle text much better than Safari, and the syncing is more convenient to me (because the tabs sync with my Android/Linux devices as well probably). Apple Maps seems to give pretty poor directions relative to Google Maps (just last weekend 2 of my family members got lost on their way to a family party because they used Apple Maps and it took them to the opposite side of town). Everyone using Google Maps made it just fine. Siri's voice recognition feels much slower and less accurate than Google Now.
"By placing their apps on iOS, and essentially being the best of breed in every category..." I have to say that this is a stretch. Their mapping app is worse than Apple from a UX perspective. Granted the data is better, but Apple are improving very quickly in this concern. The Gmail app isn't even the best Gmail app on the platform, and their anti-user stance (getting rid of ActiveSync, not supporting push on other devices) is the only reason Mail isn't particularly great with Gmail. Conversely AS/Exchange, Hotmail/Outlook, Yahoo! and iCloud mail all work really well with Mail. The Google app itself is riddled with bugs that made the last update practically unusable and Now useless. The other apps barring Chrome, which does have issues but are out of Googles control, seem to be abandonware. For me, if you are already locked into the Google ecosystem, then Android is the obvious choice. However Google, IMHO, are playing dirty on this front.
"...they could all become fronts for Google's apps." Which would, IMHO, be disastrous for consumers and the open web. Google already have far too much control in the web space, getting close to ubiquity. Samsung, at this juncture, are the lesser of two evils. However, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could spit.
Android was designed to kill the smartphone business. Samsung is smart enough, and well run enough, to use Android and then discard it. Other Android OEMs are roadkill.
Hmm, I'm interested why you think that - I think Google's goal is to fundamentally change the smartphone business to be about services, not hardware, but I don't think that's the same as killing it. As for Samsung, Apple don't seem to be able to match Google's services, so I don't see why Samsung should be able to do any better. I don't own a Samsung device, but if I did I can't think of any Samsung service I'd want to use.
But the end result is the same, they are being commoditized into irrelevance.
Is that really true? I like Thinkpads, but not for the "ThinkVantage" features. In fact, the first thing I do when I buy a Lenovo laptop is remove all the stuff that "differentiates" them. I just want a computer, not "an experience".
> Samsung's phones aren't as much better than Motorola as Samsung seems to think they are. It isn't hard to see Google pumping the next Razr model with significant advertising dollars and claiming the crown for best selling Android smartphone for itself. Remember how fast Chrome beat out Firefox and and IE?
It's the brand that matters. Motorola's is pretty beat up and is losing a lot of money every quarter even after Google bought it. I doubt Samsung warming up to Google will stop it from marketing the next Razr phone anyway.
Also, much of Chrome's success among non-geeks came from default bundling and installation with Flash, Acrobat Reader and Java updates, not from Google's marketing. A lot of Firefox users that I had moved from IE during the IE7 days had no idea how they ended up with Chrome on their machine.
>Samsung should have been content slipping under Google's radar and riding that wave. I can't see how poking the Google beast is a good idea.
I don't think it's as easy for Google to sell tens of millions of phones as you think it is. They've had some major screwups with hardware like the Google TV, Nexus Q etc.
> They've had some major screwups with hardware like the Google TV
AFAIK Google has never released their own hardware for Google TV. Hopefully this changes but it's probably not fair to lump the shitpool that is Google TV hardware in with Google's hardware faults (of which the Nexus Q really seems to be the only one, maybe the Xoom as well?).
Samsung should have been content slipping under Google's radar and riding that wave. I can't see how poking the Google beast is a good idea.