- Posts tagged Google
- Explore Google on posterous
Do We Finally Have a Consensus On Android Flash Performance?
So with that in mind, how did Flash video actually perform on the Nexus One?
Shockingly bad.
Another site tries Flash on an Android device and is disappointed.
Looks like Laptop magazine was right. So was Steve Jobs. So was I. Heck, so was Adobe.
Asymco on how Google’s lack of Android control affects their value chain
Google today is faced with the prospect that not only the devices (which sit on its OS) but also services and apps on top would choose to remain on old versions of Android. There is nothing to stop them from doing just that. Unlike Microsoft, Google does not enforce licensing terms for Android. It is at the mercy of the value chain.
The article also points out that even if Google wanted to stop the above scenario, they do not have the license terms to permit it.
Android or iPhone: Where is the Mobile Developer Money?
Android has more developers, yet its percentage of paid apps is much smaller than the iPhone platform. Why is that?
One might think the "open" nature of Android attracts a larger base of developers willing to contribute for nothing, but the fact is it's hard to sell apps on Android. You can only pay for apps in 13 countries, and you can only sell priced apps from nine countries. This is nuts compared to the iPhone's 90 countries, and just another Android "dirty little secret." Take heart, though, you can always sign a petition to make it better.
I know it doesn't have to be about money. Many people do labors of love for "free." Maybe it's a learning experience, a way to unwind, or a sense of community or connecting with people. These could all be valid payments for your work. Not wanting monetary compensation is a personal choice that can't be judged. Indeed, though I buy a lot of apps I appreciate "free" software as much as anybody.
Having said that, if money's what you're looking for the iPhone platform is clearly where you want to be in mobile development.
ZDNet: The dirty little secret about Google Android
After all the work Apple did to get AT&T to relinquish device control for the iPhone and all the great efforts Google made to get the FCC and the U.S. telecoms to agree to open access rules as part of the 700 MHz auction, Android is taking all of those gains and handing the power back to the telecoms.
The article nails it, but I'd like to point out the only reason Android's problems are "secret" is because there should be more articles like this in the tech press, but there aren't. Android has many issues.
Even in this article, in the comments, you've got Google supporters defending the fragmented state of Android, going so far as to deny it's fragmentation, choosing instead the euphemism "choice", and of course blasting Apple. Don't like crapware? Vote with your wallet. Great, except the top Android phones come with crapware. Well, then use root authority to delete hem. Right, because that's what I want do with my "smart" phone.
Android supporters talk like Windows users do about anti-virus. It's not bad, it's just the way it is, so quit complaining and do it. Besides, any platform that doesn't work this way must be "wrong." Or "a toy." Or "closed."
Android Weakness On Display: Motorola's 2.1 and 2.2 Froyo updates
Let’s start off with Android updates for Moto’s smartphones available in the US. Here’s the list of devices, and the expected updates…
As the fragmentation of Android phones continues, I wonder about those who bought Android because they thought it was a good phone that would get better with updates.
Oops.
Let's see what U.S. Motorola Android users can expect in terms of updates (international users fare no better):
Motorola Droid X – Android 2.2 Froyo update to start in “late summer” (as previously rumored)
The X is only a month old but shipped with the old 2.1 version of Android. It could get 2.2 in a month, and if so will finally be on the current version.
Motorola Droid – Android 2.2 update “currently rolling out in phases”
The original Droid gets 2.2 before the X, though it's still rolling out now. Like the X, the phone will then be current.
Is it that it takes so long to test devices for the current version, or that so little emphasis is placed on updating? That the latter is likely is shown by the updates below, which will not even make the phones current.
Motorola Cliq and Cliq XT – Android 2.1 updates “planned for late Q3/early Q4” (no Froyo, huh?)
No current version for these, but they can update to the old 2.1 version in another month. Or two. These phones are only nine and six months old, respectively. There's at least 15 months left on a 24-month contract but they're already outdated.
Motorola Backflip – Android 2.1 should be available in Q3
Just like the Cliqs. Released only five months ago but won't get the current Android version.
Motorola Devour – no plans for an Android 2.1 update, sadly
The Devour is only six months old, yet "devour" is exactly what Motorola did to the phone's chance of getting even the old 2.1 version. Maybe Devour users should've bought a Backflip or Cliq instead—they wouldn't be as badly outdated—but how were they to know?
Let's summarize:
- By "late summer" two recent phones should finally be current.
- By "early Q4" three recent phones should get an old version.
- One recent phone will get diddly-squat.
That's bad news any way you look at it. And don't think it's just Motorola, others are being just as stingy with Android updates.
This major weakness of the Android platform is usually glossed over (not by me). Rather than articles that critique Android's partners for weak update support—or for not pushing the platform forward—it's mentioned in passing, if at all, before discussing how nice 2.2 is. They don't mention that running the current version of Android is the equivalent of a private club to which the vast majority of its users will never be invited.
Google On Net Neutrality: Then (2007) and Now
So what changed? Google did. In 2007, Android wasn't a major mobile OS, and Google didn't have multi-billion-dollar wireless advertising relationships with Verizon and AT&T. You'll also recall that Google had hopes of bypassing the carrier retail experience completely -- hopes that flamed out rather spectacularly with the death of the Nexus One and their online phone store. The policy shift is clear and indisputable, as is the motivation: Google doesn't want consumer protections (be they privacy, or network neutrality) to impact wireless ad revenues.
Great article. Google and Verizon are doing handstands to try to distract from the obvious, but it won't go away.
I'm hoping Google's dog and pony show today about new Android 2.2 features—of little use because the vast majority of Android users do not have 2.2, and can't get it—will not distract the tech press from continuing to focus on Google's complete reversal of their position on net neutrality.
Verizon and Google Justifications Don't Add Up
there's an immense arrogance in assuming the public can't do the simple math on why neither company wants neutrality applied to wireless networks.
Yesterday I thought the Google/Verizon deal might not get enough attention. I'm sure Google and Verizon thought the same or they wouldn't have made such a bold announcement.
Personally, I'm happy to see that many aren't letting this go by so easily. I think the first day's reaction was enough for both companies to get a bit defensive but, as witnessed by the above article, not everyone's buying it.
For some other views of the Google-Verizon deal in the first 24 hours, see these:
So Google sold the tech world out as it hopes to keep one of the largest pushers of its Android operating system happy.
CDT:
spotty proposal from two companies is no substitute for real action that serves the public interest
They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genokowski and other policy makers.
The Google/Verizon statement is intentionally vague about what these new services would be and who would build them and what would be on them.
But principles are easy to discard, it seems, when one’s in search of the next goldmine. “Don’t Be Evil” can become “Just Don’t Be Stupid” when you’re in first place.
Google and Verizon: "Cable Operators Can Suck It. We Rule."
Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless
They buried it at number six of seven points, but there it is. Wired should do as we suggest, but wireless doesn't have to because we haven't built our empire yet. Wow.
This takes balls, but Google and Verizon probably figure tech blogs will simply publish the spoon-fed press releases, then shrug it off and write another Apple or AT&T horror story. The sad part is, they may be right.
The Economist: Verizon, Google and the Woody Allen problem
To be clear, if the New York Times is to be believed, Verizon and Google aren't just contesting the FCC's plan; they're deciding to pre-emptively disobey it.
Another good article looking into what Google and Verizon are up to.
Google: "Let's Do Evil." Verizon: "Works For Us."
Said laws of course would have oodles of loopholes, and would not apply to wireless in order to protect Google and Verizon's Android love affair.
Good article taking a look at what Google and Verizon may be up to. I hope we get more tech sites looking into this.
