• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The End of Android near?

I am of the belief it is Android, and the only reason Apple sells as much as they do is because of brand recognition and the status symbol it has become.

LOL . . . isn't that the goal of every manufacturer? Do not be so bothered by the fact that Apple has a large fan base. Android--any manufacturer--wants what Apple has. They want a loyal user base that opts for Android over every other brand.

Perhaps the Android side should try harder to build brand recognition.
 
I agree, Android should try to bring the Android dev's from here and other sites into the action. Let them speak for all of us that know what we want and help them develop and test the OS's before they are released. Maybe then with our ideas and bug testing help Android could be the people's OS for cell phones,as it is an open source base anyways. But like any other jerk in an office with a degree, they think they know more about what we need than we do.

I have to say though, after some time thinking about this Rim-Android possible merger I read about... if they did it right it would be great! The one thing I miss about my BlackBerry is all the productivity applications. I have a hard time finding stuff to stay organized on Android like I had with BlackBerry. Other than that I couldn't live without my Android.
 
I downloaded an application called tapu. I think that is what its called that lets you setup your news the way you want it, DJ your news as they said. I was scrolling through cell related news when I found an article that said they were talking about a possible merger. This was due to Rims interest in joining with Android. Nothing was said about if the Android side was as interested.
 
In my opinion thats not a real comparison...

...you had something that were made to have one chosen as a victor...
In the case of cellphone technology, the "VHS vs. Betamax" comparison is now TDMA vs. CDMA and LTE vs. WiMAX. Those are the standards. Those are the things that must interoperate regardless of what OS is sending the commands to the radios on the phones or in the cell site radio huts.
 
LOL . . . isn't that the goal of every manufacturer? Do not be so bothered by the fact that Apple has a large fan base. Android--any manufacturer--wants what Apple has. They want a loyal user base that opts for Android over every other brand.

Perhaps the Android side should try harder to build brand recognition.

I can't argue with you there, and I will not debate that Apple's marketing department is top notch. Although Samsung has made HUGE strides in the past 6 months.
 
Samsung has made HUGE strides in the past 6 months.
That SII ad campaign with the "faithful pilgrims" waiting in long likes drooling over the SII with its superior features was a big time winner. It hit right at the core of the groupthink silliness in a nice, humorous way.
 
as an update to this. Apple lost in the UK. They have been ordered to post a public apology to Samsung on their UK website, post ads in newspapers etc. Someone should be along shortly to post the link. Doing this from my (android) tablet is a pain. :o
 
The Blackberry and Android thing seems to be rumors floating around from folks who have some decent ideas and want to see Blackberry survive.

For example (CNN): How to save RIM. Really - Fortune Tech
And Tech News Today (TWiT): Tech News Today 547 | TWiT.TV

The basic notion is that RIM/Blackberry abandon it's software and become both a hardware manufacturer and a third-party vendor for securing Android for corporate use. That's one thing RIM has always done right is develop a stable and secure platform for corporations. Unfortunately they've fallen far behind on the tech edge.

Basically the idea is that RIM and Google get together and work out a partnership. RIM gets the VIP treatment to Android resources and in return they sure up the OS so that corporations can do what they do now on Blackberry. Secure messaging, configuration and profile management, direct push, etc... If you don't have a corporately-bound Blackberry, then you might not understand just what sort of control your company can have over your handset.

If they were to do this, then RIM would basically catch themselves up fairly quickly on the tech side of things.

I really, really don't think Android is dying though. Jellybean has a lot of people excited, and while manufacturers might be rattling their sabers at keeping up with Android versions and App devs might be rattling the bars on their cages about the same... in the end Android's market share will make it a hard thing to abandon. Remember, a lot of people who now work on Android used to work on iOS. They were fed up with Apple's draconian ways and wanted something more free and open. I don't think they'll be heading back any time soon. What's that old saying? Live free and die? ;)
 
LOL . . . isn't that the goal of every manufacturer? Do not be so bothered by the fact that Apple has a large fan base. Android--any manufacturer--wants what Apple has. They want a loyal user base that opts for Android over every other brand.

Perhaps the Android side should try harder to build brand recognition.

I wish it was just that, brand recognition. Steve Jobs made it out like it was a way of life. He turned his brand name into a cult-like society. I interact with people all the time that really don't have any real strong reasoning why they choose the phone composed mostly of glass that shatters utterly on impact with any surface.

Strangely, I've really only met one person that jailbroke their iPhone. I figured since most of the methods to do were virtually click a button that anyone would do so. Then I realized, yeah, they're iPhone users. I wouldn't expect that out of them.

As for the end of Android, only Google can shut it down truly. Since they made I believe around a billion dollars in ad revenue just from Android, I seriously doubt they will. As far as an outside source, hell no. Kangaroo courts or no, the justice system isn't going to destroy an operating system that has got 300 million users worldwide. A massive jaw dropping fine maybe, destruction no.
 
The insight gained from the VCR format wars is to compare the way each company, Sony for Betamax, and JVC for VHS, handled the war, who won, who lost, and most importantly of all, why.

The rest of this post is long, but please read it and see if you can find parallels between Google and Apple in how Sony and JVC handled the VCR wars.

Sony basically invented the home video cassette, the Betamax. Sony had the whole market to its self. There was no competition. At first.

Other companies wanted to make Beta VCRs, but Sony either did not want to sell licenses or wanted licensing fees that were so high that none of the other electronics companies were willing to pay. Sony thought that they would have the whole market for home video to themselves. See any parallels yet?

So Sony had the market all to its self, for a while. The Beta VCRs were beautifully made, expensive as all get out, and produced great video. Period.

But, JVC wanted in on the rapidly increasing action in the market for home video recorders, and either did not want to pay Sony's ludicrous licensing fees, or couldn't get a license from Sony. So JVC set about designing their own video cassette system. They named it Video Home System, or VHS. The quality of the images it produced was not as good as Beta, but were passable in those days.

Now, how could JVC make the VHS system popular enough to sell well enough to make a profit for them? There were no other VHS machines available, no VHS content (pre recorded movies to rent, etc), no VHS camcorders, etc. Why would anybody buy them? Going up against Sony's monopoly on the home video market seemed impossible.

JVC GAVE AWAY LICENSES TO FIVE OTHER COMPANIES THAT WANTED TO MAKE VCRs! Yes, "gave," as in for free, at no cost, no royalties, etc. They essentially created an open system to fight Sony's monopoly. Now is this beginning to remind you of the smartphone wars?

The VHS VCRs proliferated, there was price competition right from the start because 5 manufacturers were making and selling the recorders. And they started to sell well against Sony's high priced, heavily controlled Betamax ecosystem. The content providers jumped on the VHS bandwagon too, and VHS began to grow very fast and quickly took the lead in the market. Sony's Betamax was relegated to a niche market of purists who wanted the best quality video. But the number of content providers producing content for Betamax dwindled.

Okay, to summarize all that long-winded stuff, above: Company A creates a new, innovative, and exciting product. A thinks they will own the whole market with it and refuses to license it to others (or wants so much for a license that no one would buy one). Company G develops their own approach to the newly created market. Company G decides to make its standards essentially open source. In the end, company G wins out as their standard takes the lead in the market that Company A created.

Think about that, Company A could be either Apple or Sony, and Company G could be either Google or JVC. In either case, the company that fostered competition and started with an open market eventually won and took over the lead in the market, leaving the inventor of the market stuck in a small niche of the larger whole market. The company that tried to monopolize the market ultimately lost out. Maybe markets (as business people would define them) will ultimately reject monopolistic control and reward competition and open sources. Sure seems so in the VCR format wars, and seems to be coming true in the smartphone wars too.

This is all a long winded way of saying that Android is not going anywhere but up until and if some other development pushes them aside. Apple is probably going down eventually, and becoming a niche market player. Or they will wake up, grow some brains and license out the iphone and iOS, charge reasonable fees, and grow like a weed.

Oh, there were legal battles between Sony and JVC. Sony tried to stop the sale of the VHS system because, they claimed, it infringed on their patents. The legal battle raged on for years, as VHS took over the market. Guess who ultimately lost that court battle.

Even if Apple wins a few of the battles it is engaged in, Android will continue to grow, and stay healthy for a long, looonng time. Period.
 
Great post, but and spot on. Personally, I don't think either ecosystem is going anywhere anytime soon.
 
The insight gained from the VCR format wars is to compare the way each company, Sony for Betamax, and JVC for VHS, handled the war, who won, who lost, and most importantly of all, why.

........

Oh, there were legal battles between Sony and JVC. Sony tried to stop the sale of the VHS system because, they claimed, it infringed on their patents. The legal battle raged on for years, as VHS took over the market. Guess who ultimately lost that court battle.

Even if Apple wins a few of the battles it is engaged in, Android will continue to grow, and stay healthy for a long, looonng time. Period.


this could also be parallel to the the Apple and IBM/Microsoft wars.

you would think Apple would learn from the past.. same problems/situations.. and falling to a small niche.

looks like history will repeat itself.
 
The insight gained from the VCR format wars is to compare the way each company, Sony for Betamax, and JVC for VHS, handled the war, who won, who lost, and most importantly of all, why.

The rest of this post is long, but please read it and see if you can find parallels between Google and Apple in how Sony and JVC handled the VCR wars.

Sony basically invented the home video cassette, the Betamax. Sony had the whole market to its self. There was no competition. At first.

Other companies wanted to make Beta VCRs, but Sony either did not want to sell licenses or wanted licensing fees that were so high that none of the other electronics companies were willing to pay. Sony thought that they would have the whole market for home video to themselves. See any parallels yet?

So Sony had the market all to its self, for a while. The Beta VCRs were beautifully made, expensive as all get out, and produced great video. Period.

But, JVC wanted in on the rapidly increasing action in the market for home video recorders, and either did not want to pay Sony's ludicrous licensing fees, or couldn't get a license from Sony. So JVC set about designing their own video cassette system. They named it Video Home System, or VHS. The quality of the images it produced was not as good as Beta, but were passable in those days.

Now, how could JVC make the VHS system popular enough to sell well enough to make a profit for them? There were no other VHS machines available, no VHS content (pre recorded movies to rent, etc), no VHS camcorders, etc. Why would anybody buy them? Going up against Sony's monopoly on the home video market seemed impossible.

JVC GAVE AWAY LICENSES TO FIVE OTHER COMPANIES THAT WANTED TO MAKE VCRs! Yes, "gave," as in for free, at no cost, no royalties, etc. They essentially created an open system to fight Sony's monopoly. Now is this beginning to remind you of the smartphone wars?

The VHS VCRs proliferated, there was price competition right from the start because 5 manufacturers were making and selling the recorders. And they started to sell well against Sony's high priced, heavily controlled Betamax ecosystem. The content providers jumped on the VHS bandwagon too, and VHS began to grow very fast and quickly took the lead in the market. Sony's Betamax was relegated to a niche market of purists who wanted the best quality video. But the number of content providers producing content for Betamax dwindled.

Okay, to summarize all that long-winded stuff, above: Company A creates a new, innovative, and exciting product. A thinks they will own the whole market with it and refuses to license it to others (or wants so much for a license that no one would buy one). Company G develops their own approach to the newly created market. Company G decides to make its standards essentially open source. In the end, company G wins out as their standard takes the lead in the market that Company A created.

Think about that, Company A could be either Apple or Sony, and Company G could be either Google or JVC. In either case, the company that fostered competition and started with an open market eventually won and took over the lead in the market, leaving the inventor of the market stuck in a small niche of the larger whole market. The company that tried to monopolize the market ultimately lost out. Maybe markets (as business people would define them) will ultimately reject monopolistic control and reward competition and open sources. Sure seems so in the VCR format wars, and seems to be coming true in the smartphone wars too.

This is all a long winded way of saying that Android is not going anywhere but up until and if some other development pushes them aside. Apple is probably going down eventually, and becoming a niche market player. Or they will wake up, grow some brains and license out the iphone and iOS, charge reasonable fees, and grow like a weed.

Oh, there were legal battles between Sony and JVC. Sony tried to stop the sale of the VHS system because, they claimed, it infringed on their patents. The legal battle raged on for years, as VHS took over the market. Guess who ultimately lost that court battle.

Even if Apple wins a few of the battles it is engaged in, Android will continue to grow, and stay healthy for a long, looonng time. Period.
Thanks. This is exactly what I was thinking about, but I'm way too lazy to post all that lol. One other thing to add about Beta is a long movie wouldn't fit on one tape! Crazy when you think about it, that that was considered an acceptable design by Sony.
 
Apple can't license out iOS. It would devastate them. The true shortcomings of iOS would come out in all their glory, and it would be the beginning of the end. Without the homogeneous atmosphere it lives in, it is a very weak competitor to Android. Their apps are remarkably fragile, and would take massive effort to get them compatible with multiple hardware platforms.
 
The insight gained from the VCR format wars is to compare the way each company, Sony for Betamax, and JVC for VHS, handled the war, who won, who lost, and most importantly of all, why...
Thanks for the long post and interesting theory. Unfortunately it contains a number of inaccuracies.

Sony did have the first home VCR, but it was the 3/4" U-matic, not Betamax. Tales of Betamax having vastly superior video quality compared to VHS have been greatly exaggerated.

Both JVC and Sony both licensed their 1/2" formats aggressively. Although JVC had more major manufacturers on board with VHS, Sony wasn't far behind. Sony wasn't monopolistic (or protectionist, which is what I think you're claiming) with it's Betamax format. In fact Sony was promoting Betamax as the one standard at a time when several VCR formats and a couple of video disk formats were vying for market share.

The thing that put VHS above Betamax was that Betamax tape cassettes were too small to allow recording feature length films at full video quality, and VHS supplied this important feature. It's as simple as that.

It's all moot here though, as I wrote earlier. Betamax vs. VHS is like CDMA vs. TDMA, not Apple vs. Android.
 
I like the Gooberry name, LOL. I think that would be a hit with the younger cell phone users, sounds like a trendy phone to have. However You are right about the BB executive use thing, I would be very angry if they tried to go that route.
I also think that the deeper explanation on the VHS betamax wars was very helpful, I remember it happening but didn't know so much detail. Sounds like Sony got smarter because of that and used a new tactic to cram their crap down our throats. Wouldn't it be nice if you could have BluRay on an Xbox360 or a Wii? But Sonys endless GREED won't allow that to happen.
I do believe Android will be around for some time to come, just hope they don't decide to hit the GREED button on this project some day.
 
That SII ad campaign with the "faithful pilgrims" waiting in long likes drooling over the SII with its superior features was a big time winner. It hit right at the core of the groupthink silliness in a nice, humorous way.

Clever ads are fun. Unfortunately, if a clever ad does not work, it is a bad ad.
 
To understand this propperly you need to know the history here.

This competition between Apple and Android is not a war it is merely the lastest frontline in a 3 decade old conflict of Philosophy.

GNU project is the real start of this and was a backlash against the copywrong totalitarianism of Unix (Jobs). GNU literally stands for "GNU is not Unix"

It Started as a system compatible with UNIX but free Literally and Philosophicaly.

Torvalds built the original Linux for his own needs but its built off the work of the GNU Project. It literally is the kernel GNU was lacking and all Torvalds work is GNU GPL.

GNU and Linux
The GNU Operating System
GNU Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The GNU Manifesto - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
The GNU General Public License v3.0 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
notice this article is named .../copyleft. It is GNUs own discription of there GPL (GNU Public License)
History of Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Penguin's Guide to Linux- The History of Linux

Apple/Unix
The UNIX System -- History and Timeline -- UNIX History
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(Unix)
apple-history.com / Company History: 1976-1981
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.

Microsoft. the midle ground and Apples oldest beef.
A history of Windows - Microsoft Windows
History of Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As antitrust case ends, Microsoft is victorious in defeat - Baltimore Sun

Google and Android
Our history in depth ? Company ? Google
pay special attention to the "what we believe" section.
History of Google - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The History of Android - IGN
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)

What I am about to say ...I hear the Apple Jack Boots stomping already... is not meant as a slander against the Late Mr. Jobs

Steve Jobs was an awesome salesman who did a great job marketing the sweat of others and then wringing every penny out of it.

Appleites always get dewy eyed when schooling us about how we should love Apple because they invented the smartphone.
The story about Jobs dreaming up the Iphone/pad years before it was even possible.
He didn't come up with the idea, thats right, none of it. He did get things jump started.

Evry aspect of what the first Iphone did had been kicked around and discussed in scifi and by geeks for a very long time.

Think about the intelectually property apple is always going to the courts to protect.

history of handheld computing - Google Search
 
Back
Top Bottom