Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the if-Google-won-did-we-the-people-lose? dept.

Android is 10 years old this week. In part one of a larger story, The Register looks at the beginnings of Android, including some early competition, and a brief comparison to Microsoft.

Google was in the game, at a time when others didn't realize what the game was. Or did, and couldn't turn the ship around fast enough. Android succeeded because it was just about good enough, and its parent was prepared to cross subsidize it hugely. Android wasn't brilliant, but it was better than Bada, and uglier than WebOS. Symbian simply wasn't competitive. If you were a Samsung or Sony or HTC, then Android gave you what you needed, it gave users a better experience. Developers were happy writing for a Java OS, it was a doddle after writing for WM and Symbian.

[...] Motorola also had a significant part to play in Android's success . . . as did Verizon. Carriers like Verizon had been snubbed by Apple's carrier exclusive strategy, and Verizon was badly burned by the BlackBerry Storm. It went all in.

[...] Android is far bigger and far more invasive than a PC could ever be. Google's dominance over our personal lives is far greater than Microsoft's ever was. The clunky laptop in the corner did not track your every movement or read your emails.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:29PM (#596933)

    Google can't seem to make up their mind about Android on the desktop or not.

    Yes there seemed to be a push towards that around the release of the tablets-only 3.0 version.

    But then much of the effort were rolled back during the later 4.0 releases, and Google tried to push ChromeOS instead.

    Note btw that ChromeOS was current CEO Pichai's baby, while Android was originally a Andy Rubin startup (and he ran the division like his own fief, even nixing Android for tablets for a long time by insisting that every Android device have a mobile network radio).

    And the Android rollback coincides with Rubin first moving to robotics, and then leaving Google, while Pichai first taking over Android management and then ascending to CEO-hood,

    All this suggests there was a power struggle internally at Google, and pichai came out on top.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1