stories filed under: "android"
Google's Internal Collision Course: Chrome vs. Android
from the android's-gonna-win dept
I spent the last couple days at Google's big developer conference, Google I/O. While officially a developer conference, the event is often a window into Google's overall thinking on where it's headed. There are a lot of new products and features shown off -- some more ready for prime time than others. The clear takeaway from the overall event is that Google doesn't just believe that we're moving to a more connected world, it's grown sick of waiting for everyone else to develop it, and is laying the groundwork itself. So much of the event was about new offerings that enable more advanced things to happen via the internet and via devices. From a standpoint of pure geekery, it's pretty cool to see that vision in action.However, there was one other thing that became abundantly clear at the event, and it's that Google is on an internal collision course with itself. Day one of the event was all Android, all the time, and day two of the event was Chrome, Chrome and a little more Chrome (for good measure). With Android, the talk was basically about expanding Android everywhere. While Google had rushed out a separate and distinct version of Android for tablets, it is bringing the tablet version and the phone version back together and also looking to put it on other devices (e.g. Google TV will be powered by Android as well). On top of that, Google is looking to expand the overall purview of Android, by making it easier to control all sorts of hardware and devices as well. The vision, effectively, is that Android becomes the remote control for, well, everything. Others have tried similar strategies and failed, but it's ambitious, and sooner or later someone's going to figure it out, and Google has as good a chance as anyone.
On the Chrome side, the company continues to make improvements to Chrome itself, increasing performance massively, and continuing to allow people to do more with HTML 5 directly in the browser. On top of that, Google is really ramping up its "Chromebook" strategy of offering very cheap computers with the "ChromeOS" and with built-in cheap or free wireless.
Of course, this raised all sorts of questions about the fact that both strategies are on a clear collision course, and it's not obvious that Google has any plan on what to do about it. This shouldn't be a surprise. Two years ago, when Google first announced the Chrome-as-operating system strategy, our very first reaction was that it was going to lead to conflict with Android. And that was clearly on display at the event. Asking folks from either team about this odd split would lead to mumbling and dancing around the question. It seems clear that the two teams don't have much, if any, collaboration going on, and both are charting their own courses that seem to be starting to encroach on each other's territory. That's most obvious with Google TV. While the product has been slow to catch on, the original version was focused on Chrome, but it sounds like Android is now taking over.
Now, there's something to be said for some internal competition. It helps drive both groups forward, and lets them take different and experimental approaches in a new world where what's going to work is a huge unknown. Traditionally, though, if most companies allow for such competition, it's usually an upstart "skunkworks"-type operation against a legacy operation. In this case, it's two upstarts. And the risk there is what happens when they clash. The fact that there's no Chrome browser on Android (and the default Android browser is pretty bad) just seems bizarre.
At some point, Google is going to need to merge these two strategies, rather than just let them fight each other. Perhaps the big thinkers at Google think that time is further down the road, but it seems like soon would be a good time to start integrating the strategies. For now, however, it seems happy to let the two just remain on the collision course. And while I have no doubt that they believe both strategies are important, it wasn't hard to read the tea leaves as to which of these two Google is betting more on: the entire third floor of the Moscone Center was about Android. In contrast, Chrome had a much smaller section at the back of the second floor. Google may claim that it's treating the two equally, but its actions scream loudly that the big bet is on Android.
Filed Under: android, chrome, competition
Companies: google
Analyst: Motorola's Best Play Is To Become A Patent Troll & Destroy Android Ecosystem With Patent Lawsuits
from the great dept
Weren't patents supposed to be about encouraging innovation? Of course, the reality is that they're mostly used for the opposite purpose, which is holding back innovation, stopping other companies and cashing in on the lawsuits. It seems that some analysts aren't even pretending that patents are useful for innovation any more. Trip Chowdhry, a somewhat well known analyst in the tech space, is claiming that Motorola has failed in selling its Android-based Xoom tablets, and should give them up. He then suggests that the company go full on patent troll and sue everyone else making Android tablets. Because that will help the market. Think of it as Chowdhry's scorched earth policy: if Motorola can't succeed in Android tablets, no one should succeed in Android tablets. Apparently, Chowdhry thinks this is a good thing, because Android sucks in his opinion (though, not in the opinions of plenty of folks who are happily snapping up Android devices at an increasingly rapid rate...):The successful launch of the iPhone on Verizon, he writes, has "taken the wind" out of Android's sails. The Google app store is "a disaster." Honeycomb, the operating system on which Motorola has hitched its wagon, is "incomplete," "unstable," has a "poor UI" and is basically "dead on arrival."Or, you know, the company could take that effort and focus on making a better product and improving the overall market. But, suing everyone else and burning down the whole Android market is apparently more fun... at least for those with a ridiculously short-term focus on quarterly results, rather than a long-term focus on innovation and actually building out profitable business lines.
All in all, Motorola's "competitive fixation" on Apple (AAPL) and Research in Motion (RIMM) is misplaced. Rather than trying to innovate on software, Chowdry suggests, "selectively attacking with patents other Android phone OEM's is a better strategy."
Filed Under: android, ecosystem, patents, trip chowdhry
Companies: motorola
Android, Economic Moats, And How Zero Marginal Cost Defenses Can Also Be Great Offenses
from the ain't-just-defensive dept
Venture capitalist Bill Gurley has another excellent economic analysis of how powerful Android is and what it really means for Google. I have one (somewhat serious) quibble with it, in that I actually think Gurley misses the key economic point that would have made his argument even more convincing, but I'll get to that later on. The key points he makes are dead on, and should be recognizable to regular readers of this blog on our economic analysis of zero marginal cost products.He kicks it off with a general business observation from Warren Buffet:
One of Warren Buffet's most famous quotes is that "In business, I look for economic castles protected by unbreachable 'moats'." An "economic castle" is a great business, and the "unbreachable moat" is the strategy or market dynamic that heightens the barriers-to-entry and makes it difficult or ideally impossible to compete with, or gain access to, the economic castle....From there, Gurley points out that pretty much all of Google's other products are effectively that "moat." They're the things that keep bringing you back to Google's search and ad products. And that's where Android fits in:
For Google, the economic castle is clearly the search business, augmented by its amazing AdWords monetization framework. Because of its clear network effect, and amazing price optimization (though the customer bidding process), this machine is a monster. Also, because of its far-reaching usage both on and off of Google, AdWords has a volume advantage as well. Perhaps the most telling map with regards to the location of the castle can be found in Jonathan Rosenberg's "Meaning of Open" blog post. In this open manifesto, Jonathan opines over and over again that open systems unquestionably result in the very best solutions for end customers. That is with one exception. "In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users." As Rodney Dangerfield said in Caddyshack, "It looks good on you, though."
So here is the kicker. Android, as well as Chrome and Chrome OS for that matter, are not "products" in the classic business sense. They have no plan to become their own "economic castles." Rather they are very expensive and very aggressive "moats," funded by the height and magnitude of Google's castle. Google's aim is defensive not offensive. They are not trying to make a profit on Android or Chrome. They want to take any layer that lives between themselves and the consumer and make it free (or even less than free). Because these layers are basically software products with no variable costs, this is a very viable defensive strategy. In essence, they are not just building a moat; Google is also scorching the earth for 250 miles around the outside of the castle to ensure no one can approach it. And best I can tell, they are doing a damn good job of it.From there, he points out, that this makes it difficult for anyone else "trying to extract economic rent for a competitive product in the same market." Indeed. And while that may raise some antitrust alarm bells, Gurley later points out why it should not:
One might yearn to suggest that there is a market unjust here that should be investigated by some government entity, but let us not forget that the consumer is not harmed here -- in fact far from it. The consumer is getting great software at the cheapest price possible. Free. The consumer might be harmed if this activity were prevented. And as we just suggested above, the market is finally driving towards software pricing that represents "perfect competition."I actually think there's a decent retort to this, which is that someone could say that this moat situation means that others cannot get into the market at all, and thus consumers could be hurt in the decrease of competition, which could mean that certain innovations don't make the market and/or that Google begins to stagnate on innovation as it faces no serious competition in those areas. To date, however, I don't believe there's much evidence that this is happening with Google (though, it is an area worth watching carefully).
But, really, what Gurley is describing is the same stuff that we've been talking about for over a decade: it's the natural economics of digital goods. Over time, someone will figure out a way to price those goods at the marginal cost of zero, and use that to support some other business. So, if you're sitting around hoping to charge for those goods, you're going to be left out in the cold. We know that argument and live that argument, though it's always nice to see it being validated yet again in real life.
But here's the key point that I think Gurley is missing, and which would have made his argument even stronger. Above, I bolded the line in his writeup that said that "Google's aim is defensive not offensive," with these products. I think he's actually underestimating Google here. These moves are both defensive and offensive (the best offense is a good defense, right?), though not in the traditional way of trying to directly monetize those offerings. It's that those "free" or abundant goods don't just act as a defensive shield, but they can also make the scarce "castle" good much more valuable. If we're sticking with the moat analogy, it's a situation where the moat not only acts as a defense, but it also serves to float the castle to even higher levels.
We've described this in other fields many times. For example, in a simplistic example, with music, freeing up the music makes it easier to spread the music, build a bigger fan base, and then increase the value of the scarcities around the musician (so they can make more on tour or through merch or more creative business models).
And I think that's certainly true with Android as well. It doesn't just build a "moat" around Google search/AdWords that protects that business, but it actually enhances those businesses and makes them more valuable directly. It does those things by extending the availability and usage of such businesses (I do searches on the go from my phone all the time these days), but also opens up those businesses to scenarios where they never would have been useful before at all.
So I agree with Gurley's basic premise, that making use of such zero marginal cost infinitely available goods by embracing their free nature acts as a very powerful moat, but I think he underestimates how much of an offensive play it is in not just protecting the castle, but vastly enhancing the castle's offensive power as well.
Filed Under: android, competition, economics, free, marginal cost
Companies: google
Microsoft Continues Its Backdoor Legal Fight Against Android: Sues Barnes & Noble Over Nook
from the fight-fight-fight dept
Microsoft has been tiptoeing around its claims that Android violates certain Microsoft patents, carefully choosing who to sue. For example, it's sued Motorola, but hasn't sued Google. The latest is that it's suing Barnes & Noble for infringing on its patents, claiming that the Nook ebook reader, which uses Android, violates its patents. The patents in question all seem to cover astoundingly obvious concepts that Microsoft should be ashamed to hold patents on and be asserting:- System provided child window controls: 5,889,522
- Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images: 5,778,372
- Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area: 6,339,780
- Selection handles in editing electronic documents: 6,891,551
- Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content: 6,957,233
Of course, it's nice to see the response on Microsoft's own blog involves comments trashing Microsoft for this decision. Scrolling down the comments, almost all of them are incredibly negative against Microsoft, pointing out that these patents are obvious, that Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for suing, and people swearing off Microsoft products for being a patent bully. Perhaps Microsoft might want to think its patent litigation strategy in recognizing that it's not particularly well received by consumers.
The comments really are great, but my favorite may be: "None of this BS will get anyone to buy a Windows phone anyway." And that's kind of the point. Microsoft should focus on innovating. Not bitching about what competitors are doing better than it did.
Filed Under: android, competition, nook, operating system, patents, ridiculous
Companies: barnes & noble, microsoft
DailyDirt: Automotive Apps And Other Car Stuff
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
The past year brought some significant changes to the car industry, and the upcoming year is bound to bring a lot more. Besides just gasoline and diesel, car buyers are going to have a few more options for how their cars are powered. Fully electric or hybrid cars may only be the start. While we're still waiting on flying cars to hit the dealerships, here are some quick car-related links.Fans of Saturn say goodbye to the brand in 2010. How many other car brands would (or will?) be so thoughtfully eulogized? [url] Android-powered car radios could create a nice little app market for commuters. If you can't use your smartphone while driving, Android-powered radios sound like a pretty geeky work-around. [url] Don't flash your headlights to warn other drivers about speed traps. At least, don't do it in the UK. [url] Those "How's My Driving?" bumper stickers are turning to wireless crowdsourcing to find bad drivers. Insurance companies are gonna love this app... if folks really take to ratting on their fellow drivers. [url]
Filed Under: android, cars, smartphones
Companies: saturn
France Wants To Extend Private Copying Levy To Tablets... But Not If They Run Microsoft Windows
from the say-what-now? dept
Kurata points us to the news that French politicians are debating extending the "you must be a criminal" private copying levy to tablet computers -- but, oddly, the new levy would not apply to tablets running Windows (Google translation from the original French). The tax would apply to any iPad or Android-based device, but apparently Windows tablets won't be counted, since they'll be classified as full computers, while the other tablets are in this new taxable category. Not surprisingly, this has some companies up in arms, with the French-based Archos particularly steamed, since it's producing Android-based tablets, and doesn't like the fact that its government seems to be giving preferential treatment to an American company.Filed Under: android, copyright, france, ipad, private copying levies, tablets, windows
Companies: archos, microsoft
Does The FCC Really Not Understand The Difference Between A Device Operating System And A Mobile Network?
from the these-are-the-people-who-regulate-us? dept
As we still wait for the details of the FCC's net neutrality ruling, some have noticed that the FCC's justification for not caring much about wireless networks is somewhat baffling. Specifically, the FCC used the openness of the Android operating system as evidence that things are open in the mobile networking world:Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android.Now, whether or not you agree with the FCC's plans, or with the idea of "net neutrality" regulations in general, this statement is a bit of a head scratcher. It's kind of like saying "because cars use gasoline, we see no reason to set speed limits." I mean, the two are kinda sorta related in that they both involve cars (or mobile computing), but they're not the same thing at all. Just because Android is a more open operating system has nothing to do with network discrimination or questions about the end-to-end principle of networks. Making such a statement suggests that the FCC doesn't understand the difference between an operating system and a mobile network... and that's just scary.
Filed Under: android, fcc, net neutrality, openness, operating system
Companies: fcc
