Google Develops Mobile Phone Software

[Blaze]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7078921.stm

Google's Android software will be provided...

[Sidoh]

Haha.

Is this old news, though?  Is this separate from the phone they were "secretly" developing a while ago?  One person who worked at Google over the summer here was talking about it a while ago, but I don't recall if it was a phone or software.

[Warrior]

This will never work. In fact, if Google's name would not even be mentioned no one would even look this direction.

Not interested.

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=10602.msg135101#msg135101 date=1194327093]
This will never work. In fact, if Google's name would not even be mentioned no one would even look this direction.

Not interested.

Why?  Just because there are already well established platforms doesn't mean another, equally functional one can't be developed, deployed and used...

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=10602.msg135101#msg135101 date=1194327093]
This will never work. In fact, if Google's name would not even be mentioned no one would even look this direction.

Not interested.

Why?  Just because there are already well established platforms doesn't mean another, equally functional one can't be developed, deployed and used...

Because it's a useless platform. Cell Phones are becoming fast enough so that standard toolkits, with albeit some slimmed down specialized APIs can be used.

This is most evident with the iPhone, in which you can construct your own toolchain with objective C and the in-house APIs designed by Apple. It's simple, quick, and effective.

Additionally, Web2.0 technology is being pushed more than ever by even Google itself. Why not include functional Web-2.0 aware browsers? As with the iPhone, you get the best of both worlds.

The future of Mobile developments is not in some umbrella platform, but in personalized development targeted for that specific platform. Anything else in the end, no matter how nice it looks on paper, requires too much compromise for the sake of interoperability.

[Sidoh]

I fail to see how any of that warrants saying something like this couldn't be successful.

It seems to me, as with many of your arguments, you make a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily true and base your reasoning on little more than scepticism.

[Warrior]

I fail to see how any of that warrants saying something like this couldn't be successful.

It seems to me, as with many of your arguments, you make a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily true and base your reasoning on little more than scepticism.

Prove me wrong. I'll be waiting. Can you cite a specific advantage that their software stack will bring? Seems like they're pushing yet another platform that offers nothing new or even remotely exciting.

Answer this: If the word Google had been found nowhere in the article, would you give a damn? Well, I mean perhaps if bad and unoriginal ideas are your thing.

Nothing that has not been previously do-able, is brought to the table. Nothing that yields any sort of advantage over the current offerings has been shown.

Do you really think this will hurt the competitors? Will it shove the likes of Microsoft or Apple? I'd be surprised if they give a yawn in the general direction.

Google was would have better time invested into developing their own closed ecosystem. Trying to come up with a completely backwards paradigm for the sake of being open sacrifices functionality.

I also find it hilarious how they choose the neutral -- almost buzzword like status of open and open source to push something that is going to be ad powered. Who gets the revenue here? Google.

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=10602.msg135114#msg135114 date=1194331856]
Prove me wrong. I'll be waiting. Can you cite a specific advantage that their software stack will bring? Seems like they're pushing yet another platform that offers nothing new or even remotely exciting.

That's the point.  Neither you nor I know how it's going to turn out.  I'm not saying it's going to be a wild success; I'm saying it's silly to conclude that it will or will not fly.  That's exactly my point.  You're hasty to come to a concrete conclusion when there is simply no way to tell what's going to happen.  I agree that there is evidence pointing in either direction, but weighing it and coming to any conclusion that doesn't leave room for error is asinine.

I'm not saying what you going on about here isn't going to happen.  I'm saying that it's silly to say that it will for sure happen, which is exactly what you're saying.

It occurs to me that this isn't an argument/counter-argument thing.  It's me pointing out an objectivity.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=10602.msg135114#msg135114 date=1194331856]
Prove me wrong. I'll be waiting. Can you cite a specific advantage that their software stack will bring? Seems like they're pushing yet another platform that offers nothing new or even remotely exciting.

That's the point.  Neither you nor I know how it's going to turn out.  I'm not saying it's going to be a wild success; I'm saying it's silly to conclude that it will or will not fly.  That's exactly my point.  You're hasty to come to a concrete conclusion when there is simply no way to tell what's going to happen.  I agree that there is evidence pointing in either direction, but weighing it and coming to any conclusion that doesn't leave room for error is asinine.

I'm comparing what they have presented, to what's availible and seeing that there is nothing here of any substance. So unless they can actually innovate, I'm not impressed. It's perfectly valid to draw a conclusion based on to-be-released products, it's what a lot of people do.

Nothing is set in stone, but thus far it's nothing impressive. I'm not going to give them an automatic thumbs up just because they may, or may not be telling the entire story.

I'm not saying what you going on about here isn't going to happen.  I'm saying that it's silly to say that it will for sure happen, which is exactly what you're saying.

It occurs to me that this isn't an argument/counter-argument thing.  It's me pointing out an objectivity.

I think it's pretty on target to say it will happen based on the released information. There is a fine line between "well this may work" and "no way in hell" and at this point in time I think there is no way in hell that this will work.

Of course, we'll see in '08 in which you can look back and laugh at me if I'm wrong.

[Sidoh]

You can draw a conclusion, but to say it is intrinsically correct when there is so much subjectivity involved is clearly vacuous.  That's what I'm getting at.  I don't mind you being opinionated; it just irks me when you imply that what you say is correct by the fact it's coming from you. :P

I wouldn't laugh at you if you're wrong.  I don't care. :)

[CetniK]

Google will be the new Microsoft! (minus the shitty products)
Mark my words...

[Warrior]

Google will be the new Microsoft! (minus the shitty products)
Mark my words...

Shitty products..but they've had their best quarter in nine years? They pulled the Stock Market out of the slump they were in for weeks? They moved 80 million Vista copies? That's many times over the number of OSX users on the planet.

The estimated install base for Windows is one billion. Good luck.

[Hitmen]

x86] link=topic=10602.msg135141#msg135141 date=1194354042]
Shitty products..but they've had their best quarter in nine years?

yes?

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=10602.msg135141#msg135141 date=1194354042]
Shitty products..but they've had their best quarter in nine years?

yes?

Sorry, I just don't get how that works. Bad products usually don't equal profit..

You know, Considering Windows Vista has the best security track record of any OS..
All Vista security bugs have been stopped dead in their tracks by UAC. Enlighten me.

So Vista in one week, sells more than the entire OSX install base. Enlighten me.

360 outsells the PS3 five to one. Enlighten me.

Zune takes 12% of their respective market against the iPod, surpassing even Microsoft's initial expectations. Enlighten me.

How about Visual Studio? .NET Framework? XNA Framework? Crappy non-innovative products too I suppose?

No. I mean, if you can find a fault in any of my logic by all means. Money talks, marketshare talks, and it's obvious which direction they lean in. I mean seriously, go ahead if you can. It should be interesting to see how baseless your arguments are.

You know, it's a few months after Vista's release and from the looks of it all of the "issues" people had with it don't have a leg to stand on. It's solid as a rock, and will only continue to get better with the impending service pack.

Where's the shitty products? Point them out to me.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=10602.msg135144#msg135144 date=1194357486]

x86] link=topic=10602.msg135141#msg135141 date=1194354042]
Shitty products..but they've had their best quarter in nine years?

yes?

Sorry, I just don't get how that works. Bad products usually don't equal profit..

They do in a monopoly situation, or something close where people don't have a choice.

If Microsoft was to roll out a totally awful OS (I won't say that they did, but I also won't say that they didn't, it's irrelevant right now), it would still be wildly successful. Why? Because everybody who buys a computer is forced to buy it. I legally own half a dozen copies of Windows that I promptly deleted simply because I had no choice.