Comments on: Google's Rubin: Android 'a revolution'

It's hard to build a revolution with just one phone. But more Android phones are around the corner, says Google's Andy Rubin, and the door is open to more than just phones.

[johnisfun]

Good read, Rubin really seems to believe in Android. I think openness is a winner, I can only imagine how phone app developers are getting stuck in, wish I were among their number :)

[gerrrg]

This is why Palm fails.

They embraced and perpetuated a proprietary system with their own phones. Palm will find their little niche, but they will never become more than just another cell phone company, just another RIM.

[free_fight49]

i would love to see a google OS.... as far off as that sounds :-)

[t8]

It will probably happen.
Android will likely move up the food chain to bigger hardware devices including PCs in time.
For now, it is aimed at the phone and Netbook as these market are not dominated by Microsoft as PCs are.

[Kwasiowusu]

Andriod "revolution"?
Andriod is just another Linux based smartphone OS, not even as good as Backberry, Nokia's Symbian or Windows mobile.
What ris evolutionary about that?
Not to mention Andriod is getting clobbered in market share by Blackberry, the iPhone, Windows Mobile, Symbian and practically everyone smartphone OS maker out there.
I continue to be puzzled as to why CNET continues to devote an inordinate amount of space and time to an operating system from Gooogle that continues to have very little effect on the market. Not to mention CNET has continued to shill for Google's Chrome since before it even came out, even as Chrome's market share performance continued to founder and get nowhere.
I guess CNET has to push it's own agenda.

[Crackbone]

The revolution is being able to provide an experience that is comparable across a variety of phone manufacturers and carriers.

Marketshare has nothing to do with anything at this stage of the game. You've got one handset(the second emerging now) that's managed to sell 1M+ on the 4th largest carrier in the world. If you take it all into account, they've been very successful(considering the spartan hardware(G1)).

The reason why Google gets as much play as it does on CNet is, Google's business practices, products and philosphies are different than the rest of the major players out there. Whether you buy it or not, it's about empowering people to access information. Your thought process on this is way too compartmentalized.

Android is just another piece of the puzzle. Free applications mean more accessability for everyone. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

[CDubber]

"The revolution is being able to provide an experience that is comparable across a variety of phone manufacturers and carriers."

And this is where the revolution fails. There is no better example of the need for an integrated hardware/software model than in mobile phones. Android (or WinMo) will never be able to provide a, say, iPhone-esque experience because of the vast array of hardware running it. Ultimately, consumers don't care as much about choice as they care about a seamless user experience. And a hardware-agnostic mobile OS won't be able to provide that. That's just the reality of the situation.

[Crackbone]

@ CDubber

I don't disagree. However, that's been precisely my experience with Android. The point is, you can build an OS that provides exactly what you are describing. Will it be for everyone? Of course not. However, will it be compelling enough and provide choice? I'd say yes.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ Crackbone :"The revolution is being able to provide an experience that is comparable across a variety of phone manufacturers and carriers"

Windows Mobile, Symbian etc say "Hello"
They have been doing that for years.
nothing new here. Move along.

@ Crackbone :"You've got one handset(the second emerging now) that's managed to sell 1M+ on the 4th largest carrier in the world"


How many iPhones have been sold?
iPhone sales in the last quarter alone were over 3 million.
Didn't the andriod phone launch just after the iPhone?
I wouldn't boast too loudly about that 1 million if I were you.

@ Crackbone :"The reason why Google gets as much play as it does on CNet is, Google's business practices, products and philosphies are different than the rest of the major players out there"

Yeah.
Google is more evil, more dicatorial, and uses mafia style intimidatory tactics to kneecap their search clients, and anyone who falls foul of their left wing agenda, more than any other company out there.

[chyang888]

Android is a revolution because it is completely open unlike WinMo / Symbian. Most importantly there are so much support from the developers and hardware makers all over the world.

For example, HTC, the dominant WinMo maker, have reported that Android based handsets are eating into the market shares of WinMo even though HTC has only 2 models for Android right now.

China mobile have place announced Android app stores and will fully support the Android platform with announcement of new devices. China market is what 30-35% of the worlds handset market? And most of not all of the sweat shop handset makers in China will probably be making Android phones as soon as Taiwanese Mediatek comes out with their solution.

The platform it will hurt the most is likely to be WinMo because of its popularity in Asia. But with so much developer support in Europe, I expect Symbian to have market share taken away as well.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ chyang888:"Android is a revolution because it is completely open unlike WinMo /Symbian. "

There were plenty of Linux smartphone Operating systems long before andriod, everyone of which is as open, if not more open than andriod. There is nothing revolutionary about andriod. It's the same old yet amnpother version of Linux for smartphones.

@ chyang888 :"Most importantly there are so much support from the developers and hardware makers all over the world."

There is a heck of a lot more support from developers and hardware makers for Windows Mobile than andriod.

@ chyang888:"China mobile have place announced Android app stores and will fully support the Android platform with announcement of new devices. China market is what 30-35% of the worlds handset market?"

China mobile has been makking Windows Mobile smartphones for eons, long before android

@ chyang888:"But with so much developer support in Europe, I expect Symbian to have market share taken away as well."

Pipe dream.
What is andriod market share in Europe again, as compared to the total dominance of Symbian?

[TyDiz]

Wow...I can really tell that a lot of you people have never even messed with the Android operating system...how can you even have an opinion on how it will do or even judge google on their ability to make operating systems? I've had my G1 since the day it came out and am also a developer for applications on the operating system. The user experience is honestly remarkable, and its not because I'm some fanboy of the system, but because the openness of the system really does tailor to the consumer.

For example, the regular home screen on the phone has 3 screens and allows you to switch wallpapers and add shortcuts to any application on the phone. Someone decided this wasn't good enough and didn't give the consumers a good enough ability of customization. This person decided to take that system code and rewrite it to allow all consumers who download their new version(its on the market, no jailbreaking needed to do this) can now enjoy being able to have more home screens(more than 9 for you apple fanboys), abilities to change icons, widgets(prior to 1.5 release), abiltity to change the theme of your phone(including an iPhone themes that literally changes the interface to match apples), docks for easy application access, oh my god the list keeps going...this is the innovation google talks about, these additions have only been on the market for a couple months but they have literally changed the way users use their phone.

The idea of openness is allowing developers into the system...Apple doesn't do this, RIM doesn't do this, WinMo doesn't do this...I'm not too sure on Symbian but I'm pretty sure their "openness" is as limited as these others. I honestly think the reason true "openness" hasn't been done before is because these companies want people to know it is them behind their system...Think about all the different WinMo systems there are. Most of them look completely different even though they are running the same OS. This is because WinMo has a god awful UI and manufacturers build around it so that their consumers stay happy...but you can still tell it's WinMo. Now if WinMo decided to give that same ability to consumers, to allow them to change the way their system looks, feels, and interacts with the user, you would have a million different operating systems that show no signs of it being an actual WinMo remake. Google doesn't care about their image on the system...they don't make money off of it so the consumers are free to do what they want with it. This is the idea that google is promising. They will still be around make sure the world doesn't run in chaos but otherwise they are hands-off. More or less a laissez-faire approach.

Anyway, I'm tired and am probably just rambling on now, so hopefully that gives some of the outsiders insight on what IT really is.

[chyang888]

@Kwasiowusu

Man you have a lot of hate against Android. I am willing to bet that you were anti iPhone too when it came out. And it only changed the entire philosophy of Smartphone UI design for the industry within 1.5 years of its existence.

Android is a new platform, so you've got to give it time for it to take shape. WinMo and Symbian have been out for years. One thing is clear when I went to Taiwan / China recently. the manufacturers are gearing up for manufacturing of this new device.

One point about other linux being ported to mobile devices, they didn't have Google behind it. What makes Android potentially disruptive is all the built in Google web services and the massive development support behind it.

[rwm72]

I have heard a lot about Android but have not used the Android OS yet. It does sound very promising over the next few years.
Is it purely a mobile phone OS? Or could it conceivably be a desktop computer OS in the future, an alternative or rival to Windows and Linux?
I guess it's one step at a time for Google Android but the possibilities are interesting. Can anyone see it as a future desktop OS? Does it have that potential?

[Kwasiowusu]

It's a smartphone OS, whuch Google thinks it can push onto the netbook makers as well.
They are not gonna get anywhere with it, especially if they release it on ARM chips.
Andriod is simply another version of Linux, and Linux has just been clobbered by Windows XP in the netbook space in the past year. I don't see andriod doing any different.

[Crackbone]

@ Kwasi

I fail to see how they are pushing it on anyone when it's free.

Explain that to me. I smell a M$/Apple fan.

[Renegade Knight]

@Kwasiowusu

Nebooks specs have been clobbered by XP restrictions as well. To run XP you can't innovate. Because of that there is room for Linux and Android on a Netbook. Especially if they have software that does the basics that 90% of us do on computers.

Room for success doesn't mean they will succede.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ Crackbone :"I fail to see how they are pushing it on anyone when it's free"

You don't?
You should try walking through Time sSuare some time. They push "free" stuff on people all the time..ranging from "free" flyers/leaflets to free energy drinks. Of course they are not really free. They are marketing tools.
Not to mention Google uses their so-called "free" OS to push their default serach engine onto smartphones and will try that with netbooks etc.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ Renegade Knight :"Nebooks specs have been clobbered by XP restrictions as well. To run XP you can't innovate"

Huh?
Is that why netbooks have had more innovation in the last 12 months than ever before since they started using XP on them?

@ Renegade Knight :"Because of that there is room for Linux and Android on a Netbook"

Perhaps..like the usual 2% that linux has on the world's desktops and laptops, yes?

[braicheff]

@Crackbone

"I fail to see how they are pushing it on anyone when it's free. Explain that to me. I smell a M$/Apple fan."

Having spent a significant part of my career at Nokia and the Samsung Mobile handset division, involved in the development of a number of handsets (Nokia E60, E61, E70, E90, Samsung Omnia, i8510, i8910HD) I can tell you one thing: as far as software is concerned, and especially mobile OS, there is nothing more expensive than free.

Think Linux on desktop - their market share never extended beyond the geek community, and for a good reason.

Think Andriod.

- Boris

[dicon100]

interesting news, but I think android will never be the no1 mobile os

[Crackbone]

If it gets out onto enough handsets, you better believe it will. That's the only thing stopping them now. Palm? Closed. Apple? Closed.

At the end of the day, it's about building the Google model.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ :"If it gets out onto enough handsets, you better believe it will. That's the only thing stopping them now. Palm? Closed. Apple? Closed"

Not even close.
Andriod will never even get 5% market share, let alone be the #1 smartphone OS.
And you can add Blackberry(#1 smart phone seller in North America), and Nokia(#1 smartphone seller on the planet) to the list of smart phone makers that are closed to android.

[Jeff2473]

@Kwasiowusu Android already has 5% of the mobile internet traffic. And I'd be surprised if it takes more than 2 years for it to break 5% on smart phone market share or more than 5 years for it to get 5% of all phones. Palm, Apple, Blackberry, and Nokia will continue to make good phones and probably have the more popular single devices, but the OS won't get the kind of mass exposure Android will get because they are the only manufacturers that use it(with the possible exception of Symbian) It's not like only 1 company is going to win here. You should be thankful....Android is a good system and it will make whatever OS you DO like improve.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ Jeff2473 : "Android already has 5% of the mobile internet traffic"

Can you be good enough to give us the link for that claim?
One thing that is for sure, andiod is not even close to 5% of smartphone market share. Not within even a mile of that.

@ Jeff2473:"Palm, Apple, Blackberry, and Nokia will continue to make good phones and probably have the more popular single devices, "

Those firms will continue to clobber andriod in smartphone market share far into the forseeable future.

@ Jeff2473:"but the OS won't get the kind of mass exposure Android will get because they are the only manufacturers that use it"

Nokia already controls approx 40% of all cell phones sold on this planet. They are cell phone mass exposure already.
All Google has is code for andriod. That is not mass exposure.
When it comes to mindshare in America, the iPhone and the Blackberry have infinitely more mass exposure and mass appeal than any so-called andriod from Google. Don't see anything from Google that is even close to changing any of that.

[Jeff2473]

bitter are we? btw, I should have specified Web traffic in the *US*:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/iphone-now-50-percent-of-smartphone-web-traffic-in-the-us/
and that was 2 months ago.
Nokia may have 40% of the smart phonemarket now (I think even higher for feature phones) ...but they are also losing ground. When the market is expanding as fast as the smartphone market is, it's pretty easy for positions to shift.
And you're right, Android isn't anywhere close to 5%...yet. It only has 2 phones out and the G1 had no hope of mass appeal. The G2 isn't much better, but it's still closer. With as many android phones planned as there are, I stand by my estimation that will hit 5% within 2 years. Android may never beat the other OS's but it won't have a problem holding it's own. And when I I say more exposure I mean in sheer number of phone models that have the operating system. From that perspective the only OS's that will match Android will be WinMo and maybe Symbian. As far as mindshare, you may be right, Android may never be as recognized as Palm, BlackBerry, Apple, or Windows mobile, but for the average consumer who doesn't even know what operating system their phone has, it'll fare every bit as well. And then you'll always have the fanboys like me who refuse to buy anything else :)

[Captain Bebops]

I enjoy developing for the Android platform. I have one app in the Android Market already and two more ready to go, one waiting for T-Mobile update to Android 1.5. Once you get the hang of the API things tend to go very smoothly. My apps are very niche market and I would wonder if Apple would even understand them so getting them approved might be difficult. There is no problem with Android because there is no approval process to deal with.

[Crackbone]

And, if you charge for the app, you'll actually get paid on time. :P

[CreativeMalcolm]

I don't think people get what Google's doing. Google isn't aiming to control the market, they're looking to enable the market and pressure the market. Android could be an utter failure marketshare wise and it would STILL have been worth it for Google. Same with Chrome.

Look at what's happened since Chrome's release? Firefox and Safari have both come out with notably better Javascript engines. Why did Google want that? Cause AJAX is a huge part of what they do. Firefox and Safari making Google's apps work better is good for Google, good for consumers, and even good for both Apple and Mozilla. Heck even IE is trying to be more standards compliant as a result of competition.

Google has realized a great thing, by coming out with products that put pressure on the market leaders, they force those people to innovate or copy their ideas, and thus they force those products to be better. Look at the latest version of Safari? It's borrowed several things from Chrome and I promise you Google doesn't mind!

As far as Google is concerned, their only real competitor is Microsoft in this space. And frankly they're gonna clobber em. Least that's how I see how Google sees it. They're providing a valid, and superior OS competitor for companies like Motorola, LG, Samsung, HTC, Panasonic, Sony, Acer, Lenovo and so on and so forth. They're trying to build up a reputable OS, that can go standard on any phone, even other devices. Essentially they're trying to be the windows of the mobile phone, only they're trying to do it by offering the OEMs a lot more control than Microsoft does. They're out Microsofting Microsoft.

As for it working on netbooks? That's more something the OEMs are playing with. Fact is if Google already has developers working with it that creates a wealth of app developers and apps that people will be used to from their phones. This is one reason the iPhone platform took off so well, while a lot of devs were new, a lot of old ones came on and showed that awesome stuff could be done and then new devs wanted a piece of the action.

I'm all for Android and I hope it does well... and honestly I hope they kick RIM's ass since they're sooo focused only on hardware.

[Crackbone]

Precisely. This man's got it.

Let the hardware mfgs make the hardware, let someone else produce the OS. If Google can do it for free, do it across a variety of devices, and do it well, then by all means, welcome our new Google mobile overlords.

Google's model is diametrically opposed to the other comepetitors in their space. That's why they are doing so well, and will continue to do so. Android is just one more piece to the whole puzzle, and a very good one at that.

I agree with Andy, soon the world will cover more android stuff not just in the mobile world. For the competition as some anti-android here, yes its a matter of time before we knew it!

[forever4now]

I saw the Moblin 2.0 Netbook Introduction video and it is VERY impressive. However, Android may still be the best platform for the mobile linux community to rally around.

1. It provides a "light" UI for size & power constrained devices.
2. It already supports the hardware that will likely be included in ALL future mobile devices (touchscreen, 3G, GPS, accelerometer, compass, etc.).
3. It supports cell phone calls, SMS, etc. (important for mobile operators).
4. It implements a highly stable & secure application environment (Dalvik VM).
5. It supports a commercial app store for free & paid applications.

Perhaps Android could be extended, to also support an X Server desktop like Moblin. Then, it could be configured, one way or the other, depending on device and/or user requirements.

[stigmattaman]

Yeah it's open I guess, but if you want to get the Google stamp of approval and tight integration with its services (let's face it, that's the most appealing factor of this device) you're going to have to jump through some hoops. That's one of the things that's keeping the handset floodgate from opening, as carriers and manufacturers are desperately seeing how useful the OS is without those deep Google ties.

[Crackbone]

Tight Integration?

Check out the HTC Hero: It's not Google branded, and it's running Android.

The entire OS is customizable by the carrier/manufacturer.

[forever4now]

Have you seen what Lenovo has done with Android for the oPhone? There is a video of it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw55TSW8aTE

Granted, it is a bit iPhone-ish, but still, it demonstrates the flexibility and openness of Android. As long as device vendors maintain app compatibility (for obvious reasons), they are free to change the user experience to whatever they want.

[braicheff]

@Crackbone:

"The entire OS is customizable by the carrier/manufacturer."

And how is that a good thing? Carriers and manufacturers don't care about the platform, the only thing they care about is *differentiation*. Or in other words, fragmentation. The worst thing that can happen to a platform.

- Boris

[TyDiz]

@braicheff

Manufacturers don't care about the platform?? You realize the platform is the most important part of the phone right? No matter how good the hardware is, if the software doesn't unlock that hardware's potential, then what's the point?

Obviously you haven't noticed that different phones running the same operating system, operate differently. I'll tell you right now, it's not because the manufacturers added a 3.2 megapixel camera to the phone. Manufacturers are the only ones who normally get their hands on the "actual" system and they are always making tweaks and changes, with their consumers in mind...for the better or worse, of course. The reason Android is different is because the consumers get the same access and abilities as these manufacturers when it comes to modding the system.

[zelrik]

That reminds me the vision of M$ back in the day, something like " A PC in every home running Microsoft software ". Now it's like : " A portal to our search engine in every hand, from everywhere, for free ". Google's vision will kill the regular phone, actually internet will kill the phone, but the smartphones will remain as part of the internet ecosystem. Just think about what's bound to happen, Google has already won.

[hypermark]

Not sure that I agree with Rubin's analysis, although I will say this:

Android?s success, at least in the immediate future, is bad news for Symbian and Microsoft; namely mobile OS platforms chasing system OEMS, as opposed to integrated hardware, software, service offerings like iPhone, Blackberry and Pre.

Along those lines, if interested in analysis of Android v. iPhone, here is a post that I wrote on the topic:

Why Openness May Not Be Best: Android versus iPhone
http://bit.ly/jih2x

Cheers,

Mark

[BrujoSalazar]

nothing in life is free!

[phxgoose]

I love how everyone talks about how the iphone does so much better than the G1 but as person who sells cell phones and have so many people asking me do you have the iphone. My primary response is what do you want the iphone for? I don't know, it just looks nice or cool is the primary response. It has nothing to do with how well or bad the product is, it's all to do with the hype created by Apple. Personally i found the phone to have poor reception, its UI is nice and that its been out longer then android does make it better for programs atm, but time will tell on that as more and more comes out for android.
When it comes to cell phone OS, its a pick your poison type of situation none are perfect. Symbian does well cuz of how long its been out compared to the rest. RIM does well because it went for a niche market. The iphone does well because of the hype apple provides. Android is nice because its more open to everyone involved that you can create your own personal experience. And winmo is winmo the worst out of the bunch imho.

[lagarez]

Google seems to be what they are doing on pretty much everything:

Chrome --- great --- free
Google Earth --- great --- free
Gmail --- great --- free
Docs --- great --- free
youTube ---- good --- free

what else?

[BTHHansen]

This is a typical G1/iPhone rant-fest: no hint of a rational evaluation of the products. The G1 has MMS, copy/paste, customizable folders and icons, no need for a docking station or synchronization software, multi-tasking, removable memory card and battery, a magnetometer, a truly open app market; and with 1.5 coming out, it will have video recording & sharing, an on-screen keyboard that works in BOTH landscape and portrait modes, home screen widgets, etc, etc. Despite multiple software and hardware iterations, the iPhone still lacks all of these features. Apple is trying to catch up, but the iPhone is only falling farther behind.

[flaljee]

I agree on the prospects of Android. Great interview. I wrote a post on my blog about Android and how it will become the platform of choice. http://stocksandblogs.com/2009/05/google-android-will-become-default.html

[devilfly1]

I'm quite certain that Phillip K. Dick would be much happier today. His wacko theory based on his writings about sheep, turned to a major film blockbuster "Blade Runner".

Way to go! Say Good bye to Microsoft and Say Hello to Android Operating System.

Thumbs Ups!