Do these two OS seem similar to anyone else? I just started playing with Androids and it reminded me of how I felt when I first got Windows 3.1. Back then I would download all kinds of free crap that did stupid stuff. Now that I have Android I am once again downloading all kinds of free crap that does stupid stuff.
Have you messed with any debugging with android yet? It's mainly command line stuff when you start using adb so it literally feels like windows 3.1 and dos prompt. true vintage stuff.
I've been saying all along that Android vs iOS gives me a strong early 90s Windows vs Mac vibe. History is repeating itself. I wonder when Google is going to come out with a Windows 95 type version of its OS that mops the floor with its competitors. Ice Cream Sandwich perhaps?
MS still making mistakes. They're a bit behind. Launched with no copy/paste support. Got it in the last update a few months ago. Months before they launched, they said they'd support flash. Still no flash support to this day. The hardware in their phones are outdated. The new Nokia might change that. They're going against 2 giants. There's no room for mistakes. Mango is going to be a huge update though when it rolls in a month or 2. Might be a game changer.. although I say that with a huge emphasis on might.
It isn't very similar to the Windows/Mac era. Google has to give Android away for free rather than collect licensing money, and doesn't have the leverage MS had to keep hardware manufacturers using Windows exclusively. I think Google has actually realized this now, which is one of the reasons why they went for Motorola. Of course, they also have all of the patent problems with Android as well. Their own internal emails show that they are willing to abandon Android if the heat gets turned up too high. It may turn out to be more of a sacrificial lamb than anything else.
Yeah, I'm sure they're just going to suddenly drop Android when it has 40% market share, 500,000 new activations daily, and is the #1 mobile OS on the planet. Dream on Apple fanboi.
Google doesn't make money from Android itself, which is entirely different from MS and Windows. Google makes it's money through ad revenue tied to web searches. If Android were really doing that well with the current model, why would they have purchased Motorola? Why couldn't they have simply continued with the model you think is a runaway success? Check out these articles. You don't have to agree with them, but they raise some interesting questions about the effectiveness of Google's Android strategy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/08/18/googles-big-mistake-buying-motorola-to-save-android/ http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/googles_strategic_mistakes_dro.html
Why does Android’s success have to be measured by profits? What profits has Google made from Gmail or Google maps or Google Voice or Google Calendar or Google Doc or Google OS or any of the many other free tools they have? I suspect that Android would continue on just fine even if Google bailed. Android is the new Linux.
It's to point out that Android isn't valuable to Google if it doesn't function effectively as protection for Google's ad search revenue on mobile. That's literally the reason why Android was released. cmdrmonkey was trying to compare it to the Windows business model, which was a different approach entirely. Licensing Windows is what made MS it's money. Licensing Android doesn't make Google any money. Google also can't leverage phone manufacturers into exclusively using Android, which is also different from the Windows model.
No joking. Today I had to work on account for a guy named Mufasa. I was like “Mufasa from the lion king?”, and my co-worker told me to stop being so white.