Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Businesses Cellphones Google

Samsung Could Soon Start To Twist Google's Arm 214

Posted by Soulskill
from the no-more-mister-nice-guy dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "For the past three years, Android has experienced a kind of free space expansion, but as we enter 2012, it seems the game may be changing. Instead of the old 'there's more than enough room for every Android handset maker to be a winner,' we have a three-horse's-length leader: Samsung shipping close to 55% of all Android phones, while Motorola and HTC lag behind. '[Samsung] could be in a position to twist Google's arm,' writes Jean-Louis Gassée.'If last quarter's trend continues — if Motorola and HTC lose even more ground — Samsung's bargaining position will become even stronger.' But what is Samsung's 'bargaining position'? What could they want? Perhaps more search referral money, earlier access to Android releases, or a share of advertising revenue. Will Google let Samsung gain the upper hand? It's not likely, because Motorola is about to become a fully-owned but 'independent' Google subsidiary, and its 16% of the Android market could counterbalance Samsung's influence to some extent. So what could Samsung do? 'Consider the Kindle Fire example: Just like Amazon picked the Android lock, Samsung could grab the Android Open Source code and create its own unlicensed but fully legal smartphone OS and still benefit from a portion of Android apps, or it could build its own app store the way Amazon did,' writes Gassée. 'Samsung is a tough, determined fighter and won't let Google dictate its future. The same can be said of Google. This is going to be interesting.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Could Soon Start To Twist Google's Arm

Comments Filter:
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Monday January 09, 2012 @06:41PM (#38643508)

    Open Source software has a tradition of ending up this way, especially when it's a program that needs custom hardware. (See also: Asterisk) First there's a surge in competitive hardware providers... then one of the hardware providers merges with the software provider and they then become the only hardware maker left. Doesn't require that you be the #1 vendor coming in, that follows once you become the official one.

    • by JSG (82708) on Monday January 09, 2012 @07:12PM (#38643974) Homepage

      Nice analogy but bollocks I'm afraid. I run several Asterisk systems, including at home.

      POTS n ISDN cards - Digium (Asterisk coders) and Sangoma. I'm aware of others.
      Handsets - there are masses of suppliers of VoIP handsets.
      The thing itself can run on pretty much any 32 or 64 based Linux system and I believe it can run on Windows
      There are several specific distros - Digium's own, Trixbox, PIaF, Elastix and many more

      On top of that there is FreeSwitch as an alternative software stack for VoIP.

      I can't think of many more open markets.

      • by mjwx (966435)

        Nice analogy but bollocks I'm afraid. I run several Asterisk systems, including at home.

        POTS n ISDN cards - Digium (Asterisk coders) and Sangoma. I'm aware of others.
        Handsets - there are masses of suppliers of VoIP handsets.
        The thing itself can run on pretty much any 32 or 64 based Linux system and I believe it can run on Windows
        There are several specific distros - Digium's own, Trixbox, PIaF, Elastix and many more

        On top of that there is FreeSwitch as an alternative software stack for VoIP.

        I can't think of many more open markets.

        This, PABX hardware didn't fail because of Asterisk, it failed because of the take up in VOIP. Why should I deploy a separate cable infrastructure for phones when I could just buy a bunch of IP handsets and use VLANs on my existing network?

        If you look at single solution PABX's they've done the exact same thing. A 10 user licensed PABX now comes with one Ethernet port for all handsets.

        Meanwhile, I can run Asterisk on a VM, connect it to any number of VOIP handsets and have a fully operational PABX tha

    • by kwark (512736)

      Lets see, my preference for POTS/BRI/PRI to PSTN or legacy PBX are connected with external SIP adapter (Vegastream, Patton SmartNodes, Xorcom). But PCI cards like Sangoma or any CAPI or mISDN work (I gave up on CAPI/mISDN because they lack decent echocancellers and support isn't getting any better with time), but internal cards lack a certain flexibility, though they are a lot cheaper. You can run an Asterisk platform without any Digium hardware and that is the way I prefer it.

    • by Daniel Phillips (238627) on Monday January 09, 2012 @08:22PM (#38644902)

      Open Source software has a tradition of ending up this way...

      Sure, just like Linux ended up "this way" and GCC ended up "this way" and Apache ended up "this way". Wow, Google could use some more of "this way". The solution for Google is obvious: open up more and let it be a true community project instead of Google's lapdog. That way, Samsung could never hope to keep up with the pace of development, even if they try it for a while. Historical note: Red Hat once forked Linux (2.4.9) and only managed to maintain the fork for a few years, even with about half the highest contributing coders on staff. Samsung could not even come close to that kind of effort, and in the end Red Hat failed to create a compelling business case for its fork, let alone a compelling case for Linux users in general. Google has already accomplished its purpose with Android. The handset market is now blown wide open and nobody will be running a tollbooth on that highway. Now the smart thing is to consolidate this victory by removing the value proposition for a fork.

      So long as Google fails to let the baby grow up and be a grownup, yes, there is clear and present danger of forking. And after that, toll booths.

      • If you ignore Microsoft blackmailing companies into paying for Android then no, there is nobody setting up a tollbooth..
  • by tsotha (720379) on Monday January 09, 2012 @06:49PM (#38643628)
    Google is in the same position Microsoft was a decade ago. It has money coming out its ears and not much to buy. Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business. Just like Microsoft and the xbox, Google can afford to lose money every year pretty much until it has a winner or it gets bored and finds another shiny toy. If you were selling half of all the Android phones, would you want to rock the boat?
    • by maccodemonkey (1438585) on Monday January 09, 2012 @07:03PM (#38643834)

      "Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business."

      Has this not happened already with the Motorola buyout? Google can claim it's operated independently, but it's still Google's mobile hardware arm. That alone has to piss off Samsung, and at the very least, make them look at a "plan b" for software.

      • by tsotha (720379)
        I thought the Motorola buy was just to secure patents. Are the actually making hardware?
        • by maccodemonkey (1438585) on Monday January 09, 2012 @07:16PM (#38644020)

          Motorola is continuing to make Android hardware while owned by Google, yes.

          Google is claiming that they are going to let Motorola's hardware development continue independently, but there are limits to that sort of reasoning. Motorola Mobility now exists to generate a profit for Google and is beholden to Google's shareholders. Every sale Motorola takes from Samsung is now attributable to Google. Heck, if Google hadn't bought Motorola, there is a somewhat decent chance that Motorola would be out of business eventually, and Samsung would have more of the market to itself.

          Google saving Motorola probably has hurt Samsung's market share outlook.

          • Google is claiming that they are going to let Motorola's hardware development continue independently, but there are limits to that sort of reasoning. Motorola Mobility now exists to generate a profit for Google and is beholden to Google's shareholders.

            google exists to make a profit. sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly. business units within companies quite often speak to each other concerning larger business strategies.

            • google exists to make a profit. sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly. business units within companies quite often speak to each other concerning larger business strategies.

              I agree. Android alone as a product does not generate profit for Google, in fact it's likely a substantial loss. Sure, Google makes up for that in ads, but they could generate more profit making the hardware too.

              If there wasn't profit in hardware, or the profits are "inconsequential", why is Samsung making so much money? If Google is in the business of making money, why are they giving away their operating system, and buying a hardware maker that is treading water? Google will either have to discontinue Mot

              • Sure, Google makes up for that in ads, but they could generate more profit making the hardware too.

                extremely unlikely. they have no experience producing hardware of any sort, which is why they turn to partners for everything (google tv, chromebook, and android phones).

                If Google is in the business of making money, why are they giving away their operating system

                because their OS keeps people using google services which keeps people using google search which is where they make 99.999% of their profits.

                and buying a hardware maker that is treading water? Google will either have to discontinue Motorola hardware and scrap them for the patents, or actually get Motorola into shape as a moneymaking operation. If they already have the patents they wanted to get, why keep a turkey like Motorola around in it's current state?

                in all likelihood, they won't keep motorola around. expect it to be sold.

                or, google can keep them around to make prototype devices, or some other niche that doesn't threaten other device makers. they c

                • extremely unlikely. they have no experience producing hardware of any sort, which is why they turn to partners for everything (google tv, chromebook, and android phones).

                  They'd likely buyout a hardware company that had tons of experience. Someone like Motorola.

                  Oh wait.

                  because their OS keeps people using google services which keeps people using google search which is where they make 99.999% of their profits.

                  And producing their own hardware would make them even more money, and insure that there are plenty of Android devices on the market regardless of the whims of Samsung, in turn keeping people on Google services.

                  in all likelihood, they won't keep motorola around. expect it to be sold.

                  or, google can keep them around to make prototype devices, or some other niche that doesn't threaten other device makers. they can afford to do that.

                  Which is certainly an option, but again, like Samsung doesn't want to see their fate controlled by Google, I doubt Google wants to have their fate controlled by the device makers.

                  • and insure that there are plenty of Android devices on the market regardless of the whims of Samsung

                    i guess you read and took the article to be something other than hogwash. in reality, samsung no where near being in a position to influence google. there are plenty of high-quality android device manufacturers waiting in the wings just drooling for samsung to back away.

                    I doubt Google wants to have their fate controlled by the device makers.

                    then why did they ever give them a piece of the pie to begin with? android can't be called anything other than a massive success for google. everyone is making $. there's no reason for anyone to be unhappy with the current arrangement. googl

            • by iluvcapra (782887)

              sabotaging android and all the search revenue it brings in now, and all the potential search revenue, to try and scrape some inconsequential profits from motorola hardware would be completely silly.

              That's the challenge, they have to figure out how much "potential" search revenue is worth versus "realized" hardware sales.

              The problem if you're a Motorola competitor is you are now competing with Google, and anything short of Motorola closing up shop is going to be read, correctly, as an ambiguous signal from Google about their commitment to a level playing field on the platform. Are they running Motorola to make the best phones? Integrate Android with Motorola for unfair, though legal, advantage? Is t

      • and at the very least, make them look at a "plan b" for software.

        right, since they aren't capable of taking the OSS drop of android and moving forward without google's meddling, they will write a new operating system from scratch that is better than android and maintain it and improve it all themselves. sounds likely

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sonicmerlin (1505111)

      Google hasn't made much of anything off Android. It wasted $12 billion on Motorola for ripping off iOS instead of doing cheap licensing deals.

    • Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business...

      In which it has no competence whatsover. Google's previous complete failure to operate an online market in phone hardware is enough proof of that. Not going to happen.

      • by tsotha (720379)
        Microsoft didn't have any competence in the console market either. But if you throw enough cash at a product line and manage it properly you're going to get a winner eventually. Even the Zune could have been successful if Microsoft had poured enough money into it.
        • Microsoft didn't have any competence in the console market either.

          And lost billions, which are unlikely to ever be fully recovered.

  • Android, being a highly specialized distro of linux, has grown to the point where it is forking, the separate android forks will either thrive or collapse into one or two main lines

    this is neither surprising nor distressing I do however think Google will end up under a lot of pressure to allow android market on other forks, if they fail to do so, and other marketplace providers do allow their system to be installed on any device, google will lose developers who wish to target devices like the kindle fire
    • Android is not a 'highly specialized distro of linux.'

      Linux is a kernel. Android uses the Linux kernel as it's starting point. What is built on top of that kernel is not a 'distro.'

  • Sounds unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SoftwareArtist (1472499) on Monday January 09, 2012 @06:52PM (#38643664)
    This sounds very hypothetical. Is there any indication they're actually doing this? Just because Samsung sells slightly over 50% of all Android phones, that doesn't automatically give them a huge amount of bargaining power. There are lots of other companies with competitive phones ready to grab market share if Samsung stumbles. And any attempt by Samsung to fork the OS would have a high risk of hurting their market share and giving those companies exactly the opportunity they want.
    • by MrDoh! (71235)

      True, atm they sell 50% of the Android phones, but they also sell 100% of the Samsung Android phones (obviously!), if they forked that, thats a huge base to aim at.
      But they've also got the TV market and ad platforms, something Google's having trouble with. If they're going to fork, now would be the time to do it.

      • The thing is, there's hardly any barrier to switching from a Samsung Android phone to a non-Samsung Android phone. Without a barrier, it doesn't function as a separate market. With time they could try to build up some barriers by tying users to Samsung-only services. But that would take time, and success would be far from certain. Users might just ignore their services and continue to use competing, cross platform ones. And if they tried to fork before then, it could easily drive users to leave for oth
        • by mjwx (966435)

          The thing is, there's hardly any barrier to switching from a Samsung Android phone to a non-Samsung Android phone. Without a barrier, it doesn't function as a separate market. With time they could try to build up some barriers by tying users to Samsung-only services. But that would take time, and success would be far from certain. Users might just ignore their services and continue to use competing, cross platform ones. And if they tried to fork before then, it could easily drive users to leave for other vendors.

          HTC and Samsung are already trying to offer services exclusive to their handsets. SonyEriksson too, especially with access to SonyBMG's extensive media catalogue. Thus is the nature of competition and it is a good thing(TM) as we /.er's tend to rally against monocultures.

          But it isn't working. A HTC Android phone is interchangeable with Samsung, Sony, LG, Motorola or any other due to the design of Android and the perception of the market. Consumers more readily accept that each phone is different because

    • by DdJ (10790)

      Why do you think there's a high risk of hurting their market share? Do you think most of the masses buying Android phones are buying them because they run Android? Do you think they care about the Android brand, or about Google services (like marketplace) specifically?

      If so: you may be correct, but it's certainly not self-evidently obvious. Amazon's selling Kindle Fire systems like mad. Why couldn't Samsung do the same with a fork for smartphones?

      • Re:Sounds unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SoftwareArtist (1472499) on Monday January 09, 2012 @07:30PM (#38644206)
        I think it's the Android marketplace and Google-provided apps they care about. Any phone without those is at a big disadvantage. They might be able to pull it off anyway, but it would be a risky move. Amazon's position was different because 1) they didn't have any existing market share to be concerned about risking, 2) they were trying to create a completely new market segment by pricing it way below most competitive tablets, and 3) they had the whole Kindle/Amazon ecosystem in place, giving users a strong reason to prefer it to other products. Samsung doesn't have the luxury of either 1 or 3, and trying to undercut everyone else on price would make the whole business even more risky.
  • by msobkow (48369) on Monday January 09, 2012 @06:53PM (#38643680) Homepage Journal

    Speculating about what might happen when you have no idea where the market is going or what the Android vendors might want is silly. Just watch as people get riled up about what they come up in their own paranoid imaginations and scream about how wrong it all is... this is gonna be a fun topic to read. :)

    • by hey! (33014)

      Pretty much what I was going to say. Gassee isn't talking about anything that *has* happened, or is *starting* to happen. He's talking about something that *might* happen. There's *some* value is discussing this, of course; just as it's valuable to consider what would happen if China invaded Taiwan. But there's a huge difference between that being a possibility worth considering, and the PLA shelling Taipei. It's worth considering what would happen if the Samsung/Google relationship went seriously sour, b

    • by webheaded (997188)
      Took the words right out of my mouth. This article is pointless conjecture. Oh they sell a lot of Android phones so they "could" do that stuff and yet there is no evidence of this actually being something that is going to happen. I hate this kind of stupid shit sometimes...I really do. They're manufacturing a controversy.
  • by drdaz (994457) on Monday January 09, 2012 @06:55PM (#38643728)

    Amazon (like Apple) have the content people want available directly through their tablet.

    Samsung copy the looks of trendy tech. They don't seem to have much leverage really...

  • by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Monday January 09, 2012 @06:57PM (#38643746)

    So the story is that Samsung sell so many phones/devices that they can strong arm Google now, although we do not know if they are doing this, or if they even want to do this, or what it is that they would want if they did actually do it. We don't even know exactly how many units they are selling!

    But we do know that Google would have no choice but to acquiesce, otherwise Samsung could turn to Windows Phone (which would ruin Samsung's sales overnight), or they could fork the OS and make their own version - even though that would also result in their sales dropping.

    This story is just some people coming up with some make believe stories, and citing each other to back them up.

    • "But we do know that Google would have no choice but to acquiesce, otherwise Samsung could turn to Windows Phone (which would ruin Samsung's sales overnight), or they could fork the OS and make their own version - even though that would also result in their sales dropping."

      Would it ruin Samsung's sales overnight? I think that's the question the article is posing. Is Samsung successful based of Android's brand, or is Android successful based off Samsung's brand? If Samsung changed their OS, would consumers e

      • by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Monday January 09, 2012 @08:14PM (#38644800)

        Would it ruin Samsung's sales overnight?

        Based on the current sales of Windows Phone devices, I would say yes. Companies like HTC which have a foot in both camps have a larger range of Android phones, presumable because they sell more units of that platform.

        I honestly don't hear many people saying they bought a Samsung because it runs Android. Most people just want a phone with email and web, and if it's not an iPhone they want, they'll go with whatever is on sale. That usually is a Samsung. Android often doesn't play into it.

        I am not that is true as a general rule. I think that brand recognition goes a long way, and Android has all the buzz lately. I have had the opposite experience that you describe. As being the "tech guy" at my work, people come up to me asking about Android after reading about it in the news. As yet, nobody has asked me about Samsung (or any brand) in particular. It may be that after they have made their purchase they claim that they just wanted something to check their email, but that would downplay how much thought people do put into these decisions.

      • I honestly don't hear many people saying they bought a Samsung because it runs Android. Most people just want a phone with email and web, and if it's not an iPhone they want, they'll go with whatever is on sale. That usually is a Samsung. Android often doesn't play into it.

        i have never met a person, no matter how low-techie they are, that isn't aware that their smartphone is android (or ios). typical /. response that assumes the masses are idiots.

    • by mjwx (966435) on Monday January 09, 2012 @10:18PM (#38646278)

      So the story is that Samsung sell so many phones/devices that they can strong arm Google now

      Just like Intel sells so many processors they can strong arm Microsoft.

  • Maybe because - for the most part - Samsung's phones don't *suck* the way some others' do.
    I was immensely underwhelmed by the performance of my last Motorola, and even less impressed with Motorola's support of their customers (advertised the milestone as supporting flash, didn't ship an OS update that allowed it until over a *year* and in some cases not-at-all).

    Samsung ping-ponged a bit on ICS for the Galaxy-S, but it looks like they'll be go for it after all.

    That being said, I'd love to get my hands on a X

    • > Maybe because - for the most part - Samsung's phones don't *suck* the way some others' do.

      Um, I suspect quite a few unhappy American Galaxy S owners would be inclined to disagree. The Froyo delay and dysfunctional GPS pretty much guaranteed that my next phone wasn't going to be from Samsung.

      That said, I've been pretty disappointed by Motorola (Photon), too. They got off to a good start, then completely dropped the ball ~2 months ago. They're still wringing their hands over bootloader-unlocking (yes, ha

    • by Rennt (582550)
      Samsung's phones don't suck as much as Motorola, sure. But don't discount HTC. I'd take one of their solid alloy unibody phones over a chintzy plastic Samsung any day. It's not just the physical construction either. Users seem to love Sense, but Touchwiz is universally loathed.
      • by Lumpy (12016)

        You haven touched a Droid Razr.

        Motorola has redeemed themselves. that phone is a freaking piece of art.

    • by AnttiV (1805624) on Monday January 09, 2012 @07:52PM (#38644554)

      There go the mod points, but what the h*ll, I must reply to this.

      "Samsung ping-ponged a bit on ICS for the Galaxy-S, but it looks like they'll be go for it after all."

      No, absolutely not. If you have followed the debate enough to know about the ping-ponging, you should have followed it more than enough to read that, no Samsung is NOT bringing ICS to SGS/Tab. The proposed "Value Pack" is *nothing more* than a more bloated version of GB. Android 2.3.6 to be exact, saddled with a couple of ICS-like features (Face Unlock, new lockscreen and video editor, some others) that Sammy thinks will magically make the users happy.

      It is not, I repeat, NOT based on Android 4.x in any way, and thus does not bring any sort of compatibility with Android 3.x/4.x apps at all. Which, in my opinion, would have been the primary concern with the update. Perhaps not so much with SGS, but more so with the Tab that is now largely incompatible with almost all tablet-optimized software.

      • Wouldn't it have been easier to create an Android 4 build for the old galaxys instead of redeveloping some of its new features to run on a old 2.3 build? Perhaps the hardware isn't good enough (maybe in rom storage space?) for it to be the most sensible option?
      • by BatGnat (1568391)

        Actually if you have been following it long enough Samsung have scrapped that as well, but it has been leaked.

        But who cares I have ICS on my i9000 with 99.9% of features working. It is CM9 based, and better than Samsung could have ever made it anyway!

    • by mjwx (966435)

      Maybe because - for the most part - Samsung's phones don't *suck* the way some others' do.
      I was immensely underwhelmed by the performance of my last Motorola, and even less impressed with Motorola's support of their customers (advertised the milestone as supporting flash, didn't ship an OS update that allowed it until over a *year* and in some cases not-at-all).

      Moto's hardware was top notch, a bit better then Sammy's (Samsung HW also rates highly for me) but its Moto's software that let it down. Hopefully the Google acquisition will fix this. Having owned a Motorola Milestone, I found the hardware up to the task but the software sorely lacking, I'd definitely buy a current gen Milestone with a "Nexus" OS.

  • Samsung apparently backs Tizen, the latest Maemo/MeeGo derivate: http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2012/01/09/samsung-backed-open-source-mobile-os-tizen-leaks-in-new-screenshots/ [thenextweb.com] This could all prove very interesting!
  • If Samsung breaks compatibility, then I will not be using Samsung any longer. It's just as simple as that. Yeah, I'm just one geek among many other geeks who will agree with me. But regular users far outnumber us to the point at which we don't make much difference... sad. I like Samsung.

  • they want Android closed up.

    tight as a drum, tell the dirty hippies to go home.

    i really hope that google tells them to stuff it in their arse and blow.

  • Samsung would never bite the hand that feeds it...
  • I suppose it's the same Jean-Louis Gassée? who used to work at Apple in the 1980s and created BeOS after that. It seems he got into the tech blogging world in between his work at that Silicon Valley VC firm he's in today.

    • by sincewhen (640526)

      Yes, the same one.
      Some of his previous blog posts have been featured here before.
      The guys seems to be astute, and a straight shooter.
      I don't know how accurate he is with his insights, but they are worth contemplating.

  • Hopefully in 6 months when I'm forced to throw away my phone and buy a new one there will be better phones on the market... and its looking like that better phone will be a samsung phone
  • by ghostdoc (1235612) on Monday January 09, 2012 @08:58PM (#38645352)

    Google isn't in this to 'win' and control a handset platform. They're in it to not 'lose' to Apple: they spent all that money and effort creating Android so that the mobile platform wasn't completely controlled by Apple (who could then dictate terms on advertising on that platform).

    Remember, Google isn't about making money from technology. It's about making money from advertising, and it uses technology to keep anyone else from threatening its advertising revenue.

    Google has made Chrome for the same reasons... to prevent Microsoft from controlling the browser platform and defaulting everyone to Bing. The fact that they also use this to drive standards adoption and technological advancement in browsers is a secondary bonus strategy.

    The other nice side-effect of this strategy is that we get (more or less) open platforms and improving technology. But that's a side-effect not the main purpose, and should the mindset at Google change, or the market change, expect their attitudes to 'open and improving' to change.

    Google's nightmare would be that Microsoft pays Samsung a lot of money to default all their devices to Bing. As long as they don't do that, I'm not sure Google gives a monkey's what Samsung do with their market dominance.

    • by msobkow (48369)

      it uses technology to keep anyone else from threatening its advertising revenue.

      No doubt Google leverages their market share advantage for all they're worth and allowed to by law, but I can't think of a single example where they've used technology to BLOCK competition in any way. Instead, they use technology to open NEW MARKETS for their advertising core business, such as creating Android and giving it away.

      Is there anything in Chrome that stops you from surfing Apple's website, for example?

      Can you pr

      • by ghostdoc (1235612)

        Can you provide even a SINGLE example where Google has stifled competition through the abuse of technology?

        Sorry, I obviously didn't make myself clear.

        I didn't say that Google was abusing technology to stifle competition. I said that Google was using technology to prevent threats to its business from other people's control of technology. That's a different thing.

        Google won't stop anyone visiting Apple's website, but Apple would love to stop people visiting Google's search engine (or at least, that was Mr Jobs' clear intention while he was in charge). They control their platforms sufficiently to do that if they c

        • by sincewhen (640526)

          so Google developed Android to give the market a choice

          Please think about what you are saying here. Google are in business to give people choice? I don't think so.

          • In a way: yes. They seem to have bought Android to prevent the only choice to become Apple. Mostly because Apple is uncontrollable and thus a risk, but they did buy Android to give the users a choice. This doesn't mean they don't dream of removing that choice by removing Apple from the smartphone buisiness, but they wouldn't even admit such insanely wild dreams to themselves.
  • One Word: Bada (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2012 @09:05PM (#38645406)

    Samsung already tried to create their own OS, Bada. Its a failure. It has gained no traction. Nobody cares about it.

    If they try to push their own market, they'll likely lose more than just the Market - they'll lose all google experience Application. This includes Gmail, Maps, Navigation, Translate, etc. Basically the shity that makes android cool (yeah iPhone guy, thats awesome that you have tomtom, but I didn't have pay shit for my turn by turn and its just as good when I'm in coverage).

    Samsung is making a TON of fucking money selling their devices. Their bada devices, on the other hand, don't sell at all. The moment they sell an Android phone without the google experience apps - and required ordinary users to hack the device to get those apps? That phone will have shit sales, carriers will return stock, and they'll be forced to reflash all of these devices with a proper version of android, and encur the repackaging costs for doing so.

    Of course they're smart. They already know this. Prediction: They're going to continue to be the #1 smart phone maker - and they're not gonna screw that up - anymore than they can with their shitty TouchWiz interface.

  • Not for us "users", who will expirence even more fragmentation of the market and incompatibilities/lock downs/etc.

    And there was so much promise. Greed gets in the way again.

  • 'Consider the Kindle Fire example: Just like Amazon picked the Android lock, Samsung could grab the Android Open Source code and create its own unlicensed but fully legal smartphone OS and still benefit from a portion of Android apps, or it could build its own app store the way Amazon did,'

    I wouldn't call forking an Open Source project "picking the lock".

    The Kindle Fire has no camera, GPS, or core Google apps (Maps, Gmail, Talk, Voice, Google+, etc)

    Samsung's success has been through shipping flagship devic

  • Amazon I can see, but Samsung? And we're not talking about a tablet, but a phone. Amazon wasn't foolish enough to try to pull off an "Amazon experience" phone because they knew it would fail. You can only pull that off with a tablet because its a very select list of tasks that need to work really well. No Google App store on the phone is instant buzzkill for me and 99% of the market. Even if they partnered with Amazon, it's just not enough. That's like buying an iPhone and being forced to use GetJar only.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...