The downside to fragmentation (1 Viewer)

[Sam Posten]

/bow

 

[Sam Posten]

Interesting list, unexpected source.

 

[Sam Posten]

One way for Samsung to sidestep fragmentation: Own the whole stack with a competing OS, Tizen.http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/hands-on-with-samsungs-tizen-os-a-impressively-capable-android-clone/

 

[DaveF]

I've had it backwards. I've been wondering when Google would grow tired of being Samsung's unpaid OS developer. But it's the opposite: Samsung is tired of being Google's hardware developer, though it's very profitable for them. Is it hyperbolic to think that it will be seismic if Samsung, the only Android phone developer making any money, completely separates itself and launches Google-less "Android" phones?

 

[Hanson]

It would be seismic, because it would mean hell just froze over. It's not going to happen because Samsung doesn't have the app ecosystem necessary to support a successful OS. And because of the Handset Alliance, Samsung would not be able to release a Tizen phone that would run Android apps (it's the same reason Acer couldn't release an Aliyun phone). If Samsung really wanted to test the waters to see if they could make it without Android, they should release a Windows phone and see how the market reacts. While Samsung is popular because they have the feature sets people want, the core of the experience is Android. As the article points out, no Google services means no sale, even if you could sideload Android apps.

 

[RobertR]

I'm trying to figure out why a company would get "tired" of being "very profitable".

 

[DaveF]

I'm trying to figure out why a company would get "tired" of being "very profitable".

They don't, of course. They grow tired being handcuffed by google. They believe they can be very profitable by eliminating Googles restrictions and using their own software.

 

[DaveF]

It would be seismic, because it would mean hell just froze over. It's not going to happen because Samsung doesn't have the app ecosystem necessary to support a successful OS. And because of the Handset Alliance, Samsung would not be able to release a Tizen phone that would run Android apps (it's the same reason Acer couldn't release an Aliyun phone). If Samsung really wanted to test the waters to see if they could make it without Android, they should release a Windows phone and see how the market reacts. While Samsung is popular because they have the feature sets people want, the core of the experience is Android. As the article points out, no Google services means no sale, even if you could sideload Android apps.

A windows phone doesn't make sense either, since that's replacing one set of handcuffs for another.We've got Nokia, ironically, trying an Android phone not tied to Google services.http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5445150/why-is-nokia-making-android-phones"The X series is simply a test of that strategy right now, a method for Nokia to gauge whether developers will truly port their apps across and build momentum. Windows Phone app growth must have been frustratingly slow for Nokia, and the platform lacked the low-end reach that Nokia had enjoyed with Symbian. It’s also a way for Nokia — and Microsoft in future — to try to disrupt Google’s use of Android the same way Amazon had with the Kindle Fire series. There are no Google services on these phones, and Android app developers who want to build for the X will need to edit the in-app payments, location, and notifications aspects of their apps. This gives Nokia and Microsoft control of the all important in-app purchases transactions, mapping data, and both push notifications and messages."And there's the story that Google is requiring Samsung to hew closer to Googles vision of Android. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2430151,00.asp"Multiple sources familiar with the companies’ thinking say the two technology giants began hammering out a series of broad agreements at CES that would bring Samsung’s view of Android in line with Google’s own. The results of the talks, which have only just begun dribbling out to the public, also underscore the extent to which Google is exerting more of its influence to control its destiny in the Android open source world."And then there's this Samsung story about Tizen. And the story is that it's too boring to comment on, because it's basically a perfectly mature Android version, sans Googles ecosystem.http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/hands-on-with-samsungs-tizen-os-a-impressively-capable-android-clone/"The OS runs on "prototype" hardware that very closely resembles a Galaxy S4. Tizen is a Linux-based OS primarily developed by Samsung, and, the theory goes, Samsung's grand plot is to eventually turn Tizen into a drop-in Android replacement, own the market with an OS of its own making, and never have to deal with Google again. So far, Tizen seems a pretty accurate Android clone, but it's shocking how far along it is. On the surface, it seemed just as capable as a TouchWiz Android device. Samsung has done such a good job of replicating the Android interface that there is very little to write about—everything looks and works similarly to the way it does on Android, just without any kind of ecosystem."My first reading of the world was wrong. I thought Google would grow tired of being the free, generic os maker while Samsung made all the money from their phones. But more than that is going on. Google is closing up its OS, and becoming a more proprietary OS. It's pushing OEMs to hew closer to its vision, and particularly it's services to extract the revenue from its free software. Samsung, perhaps, wants to control its own destiny and not be turned into a generic phone OEM for Google.

 

[Dougofthenorth]

I watched a really good & well done documentary recently, that posited that companies are giving choice to consumers, rather than actual functional & practical products.
They know it, purposely perpetuate it & are concerned with only with it enhancing the bottom line.
Also, they keep increasing choice to fuel the need for the "must have the newest & latest" craze. while actually purposely decreasing the usefulness & functionality of already purchased "older non-current" products. It rather forces multi device upgrading than allows for integration among other & older same-brand devices. Also, it stated we have become unpaid (pay for the privilege) perpetual Beta testers for them.
One of the must haves on my recent plasma TV purchase, was the ability to turn off the Smart features, which gladly, I can almost totally accomplish.

As for OS - I threw in the towel long ago - I only use MS & Android & avoid most of the Dreaded Driver Dearth...

 

[Hanson]

I'm sure Samsung would love to have their own OS with their own design language and not answer to Google or create workarounds for the features they like. For instance, external SD card support is basically hacked into Android since it hasn't been officially supported since 4.0, but it's a huge differentiator for Samsung and a very popular feature. But the reality is, releasing a phone without an ecosystem is a tremendous problem. Sure, Samsung could jump ship with Tizen and take, what? Half of its customers with them? Probably not even that. But even if it were 65%, they would lose a ton of revenue doing that, and would never get back to its current heights with Tizen. So it makes zero business sense.

 

[RobertR]

That's why I asked the question why Samsung would abandon a situation that's making huge amounts of money for them. "It's just like Android, but it's not tied to Google and has no ecosystem". How is that a selling point?

 

[DaveF]

That's why I asked the question why Samsung would abandon a situation that's making huge amounts of money for them. "It's just like Android, but it's not tied to Google and has no ecosystem". How is that a selling point?

Presumably it would be a drop-in replacement. Most Android apps would work as-is. Specific cases would have to be recompiled against Samsung's variant. Games might need the most adjustments. Here are two articles discussing pros and cons of MS forking android for its own good, which I think is equivalent. Ars Technica says it's untenable. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/neither-microsoft-nokia-nor-anyone-else-should-fork-android-its-unforkable/Stratechery claims Ars overstates the negatives and it's quite doable:http://stratechery.com/2014/microsofts-mobile-muddle/I'm not knowledgable to judge the merits, but I'm intrigued by the proposition it can be done:"(I am aware of Peter Bright’s article that says Android is unforkable; I find it technically accurate but misleading. Of course there are some APIs in GMS, but a tiny amount relative to AOSP, and almost all related to cloud services which Microsoft by definition wants to replace. Bright waves this away by saying it’s “too much work,” but it’s much more work trying to get developers to build entirely new apps than it is to get them to change a few lines of code to support your store. Sure, Google might try to mess things up, but far better to rely on your own ability to adjust than on developers over whom you have no leverage.)"Let's suppose it's doable, but would cause short term pain. Why would Samsung do it! Long-term freedom and long-term success. They don't want to be Dell to Google's Microsoft: top OEM for 30 years, but ultimately destroyed by MS playing the hardware vendors against each other to maximize its own profits.

 

[RobertR]

Presumably it would be a drop-in replacement. Most Android apps would work as-is. Specific cases would have to be recompiled against Samsung's variant. Games might need the most adjustments.

Ironic that you would talk about a system requiring "adjustments" to apps in a thread titled "the downside to fragmentation". Still can't see how consumers benefit from this.

 

[DaveF]

I don't know that consumers will (or won't). At present we're taking about whether Samsung would and the benefits and detriments to them.

 

[Sam Posten]

Ironic that you would talk about a system requiring "adjustments" to apps in a thread titled "the downside to fragmentation". Still can't see how consumers benefit from this.

You are thinking too short term tho. IF such a fork were to occur and Samsung gets their own app store and creates their own front ends to google services they then have a platform where they control the fragmentation, same as Apple (and Amazon) which Google and to a lesser degree Microsoft cannot.You can argue if that is better or not for the over all marketplace of consumers (I'd expect it wouldnt be, but too early to tell) but for those consumers who choose that new samsung platform clearly having a homogenous ecosystem has its benefits and fans (like me!).

 

[RobertR]

IF such a fork were to occur and Samsung gets their own app store and creates their own front ends to google services they then have a platform where they control the fragmentation, same as Apple (and Amazon) which Google and to a lesser degree Microsoft cannot.You can argue if that is better or not for the over all marketplace of consumers (I'd expect it wouldnt be, but too early to tell) but for those consumers who choose that new samsung platform clearly having a homogenous ecosystem has its benefits and fans (like me!).

Why would developers want to create apps for a separate ecosystem that's "just like Android" (except for all those modifications, of course) when the Google play store is already in existence? What's the sales pitch to consumers? "It's just like Google, but it's not"? Maybe it appeals to you for being the (kinda, sorta) unAndroid, but I don't see why many people would flock to something that "is and isn't Android".

 

[Sam Posten]

On that we agree. I think the rise of multiple incompatible app stores where purchases of not only apps but media doesn't port is unsustainable. I think Samsung has tough road ahead selling this. Assume for a second that Samsung abandons Android completely and the only way to get a Samsung device is now Tizen. Does that make it more palatable to go to Samsung's offering or to look at a 'lesser' brand android phone. I can't answer that. If you go with Samsung you gotta buy all your stuff again. If you go with the other Android dudes you get to keep your stuff but have to change look and feel and features. Ponderous, right?But is that short term pain worthwhile for Samsung to throw off the Android yoke? To control the whole stack and their own destiny?Or will it be dual platforms for a long time?Or is it all a head fake of some kind?

 

[DaveF]

Samsung's success in creating a new OS depends on whether people are shopping for Android phones or Samsung phones. In the 90s, people were shopping for Microsoft Windows computers, not Dell or Compaq computers. So there was no chance for an OS clone or alternative. But there was room for CPU competition.I speculate Samsung doesn't want this replayed and thinks phones are different.

 

[RobertR]

People shopped for Windows computers instead of Dell or Compaq computers because the whole point of having a computer is running the software that's on it. There's no reason why phones should be any different. "Buy this new Samsung phone!" that runs....what? Apps, an ecosystem that are so much "better" than Android that it's worth abandoning it altogether? How? And if it's not "really" an abandonment, why bother?

 

[Sam Posten]

All valid questions