How Google's Android Silver could become 'Wintel for phones' In the 1990s, Intel and Microsoft dominated the "open" PC standard – and it appears that Google now wants to do the same for its Android system, via its Silver programme. Silver has yet to be announced, but industry sources have confirmed the details to us. While the comparison between Google today and Wintel then isn’t …
There's nothing stopping HTC or Samsung from developing their own Android branch.Google is throwing the dice on developing a tune the others will dance to. The others can always write their own if financially viable.
I have an HTC One and love it. It's running a Cyanogen release and works like a dream.
Google control the Play store. So I think Google have them by the balls. Even Samsung.
Well that's not totally true. But it would take a lot of work to get the same variety of apps out there - even for an Android fork. I don't know what tools Amazon have made available - but they've only got 20% of Android apps on there. After several years and very decent market share. And I'm not sure any of the mobile manufacturers are up to getting the software, store and developer stuff all sorted at the same time.
Look at what's happened to Microsoft and Blackberry. And I think a large component of that is lack of apps. Both the phone OSes are nice.
The place you can do well despite a lack of apps, is at the bottom end. The sub £150 smartphones. But there's almost no profit to be had there. All the cash is at the top end. People paying £30 a month plus for their calls (and hire-purchase on the handset), those people want apps. The latest and shiniest apps.
>There's nothing stopping HTC or Samsung from developing their own Android branch.
There isn't a hard barrier preventing Samsung et al forking Android, but there are some hurdles:
1. The Google Play app store. If you fork Android, you can't use the Google app store.
2. Google Play Services libraries. Again, you can't use these if you fork Android. They are Google's propriety code, for things like location and in-app purchases. Google have been actively persuading 3rd party app developers to use these proprietary libraries.
3. If you fork Android you can't use the Gmail Client, Google Translate, Google Calendar and Google Maps apps, amongst others. You might note that these are the very apps that Samsung has its own equivalents for - hence the apparent duplication of functionality on Galaxy devices.
4. If a hardware vendor releases a device with an Android fork, Google prohibit it from also releasing a Google Android device. i.e, hardware makers can't hedge their bets in this regard, or dip a toe in a forked pool.
The above points indicate why Samsung have duplicate apps, and why Amazon had to reach out to a obscure manufacturer for their forked Android tablets.
Android hardware makers could cooperate on making a fork, but that wouldn't give them an advantage other each other, either.
Isn't that a walled garden? Well at least a privet gedged garden.
Go fork Android and s far as Google are converned, you are a pariah. They don't care about any loss of revenue from not letting these forks use the Play Store.
Different layout of the playing field but still a walled garden in my book.
Does this piece criticise Google?
I read it more as a warning. There are big pros to having one company set the standard. You get interoperability, a drop in costs, simplicity, a chance of believable roadmaps.
There are also some pretty big possible cons. The risk of predatory monopoly, and the loss of interesting innovation being the two biggies. Also the fact that you're totally reliant on one company, who might cock everything up.
Quick updates is just part of the bigger picture.
As I understand, the base firmware (which includes the kernel, HAL and such) also includes all the baseband software. That has to be certified by various regulators before it can be released. Since Google only releases Nexus in a very few markets (US/EU?), certification for them can be relatively quick. Not so for other OEMs who are global players. If I "import" a Nexus device for local use I'm technically breaking the local law since the device has not been certified by the local regulator.
The other concerns from many corners are that Android has been sold as being Open Source/anyone can contribute/rising tide raises all boats/foster innovation and (at least the spirit of) that undertaking has been substantially eroded.
The certification is for the phone, not for the standalone software or hardware. It is just paperwork: multiple presentations of the one set of tests conducted by the phone manufacturer. If you import a device then you ask the manufacturer for their test pack and munge it into the format expected by the local regulator.
...a part from HTC, no other vendor actually improved on stock Android.
Add operator pressure, awful software bundles, and typically no updates within phone's lifetime, and Silver starts looking like a real good deal.
Apart from HTC, again, but it didn't pay off to them...
While HTC maybe be a casualty, Google's real target are Nokia and Amazon who are forking android and selling their own services through it.
I think Google will be happy as long as the phone uses the Google services for things like apps, emails and browsing. It is after all primarily an advertising company
This always happens as technology advances. When the first cars where being made, there were tens of thousands of companies in Britain alone making cars, engines, gearboxes, seats, bodies, custom paint jobs, and the rest. Today we're reduced to a handful of global giants. The same happened in pharma, it happened a bit in banking post-2008, and now it's happening in mobiles. I daresay Chromecast is eating all the competing TV dongles too.
Cyanogenmod-certified handsets for the techie. Nokia can probably pick-up the remainder (poor people and non-conformists need phones too!).
Sounds OK to me, particularly the part that promises death to the Android overlays.
Not hard to imagine it all going catastrophically wrong, though.
You mean the crap I ripped off almost every phone I have ever owned? If the stuff is REALLY any good, then why not offer it as an add-on that people will flock to get.
They will flock , wont they? After all, Its not REALLY crap. that's just my imagination.
Nice article.
However, this isn't the 90's and what Google will end up with is another variant of their Nexus line. Some will buy it while the rest of the world + dog will continue to buy what they see in the mob store of their choice. If carriers don't pick these things up, then they won't sell. Period. The introduction of Silver and the theories stated here forget the deep relation that mob carriers have with manufacturers. These guys want their value add software on the phones to tie customers to their services for long periods of time. Introducing a clean Google version of software that is already Google, but without the carrier bits is going to turn them off (the carriers), leaving this one for sale on the Google store only.
Not to mention, Google is becoming less and less popular as people become aware of how much of their daily lives they are sucking into their marketing machine. I can't see the public welcoming a pure Google experience with open arms at this point in the game.
As long as it is optional. The tablet I have has a nice (though I quickly note OPTIONAL and freely available to anyone in the Play Store) Android folder/file browser. Not all supplied apps need to be horrid... :)
Personally I think those dreadful apps that suppliers install are to bait and switch, data glean after the sale and give you reason to want an "upgrade" path away from them. :P
24 month contracts are now the norm
The nexus line represented a real option for those of us that use WiFi more than data+voice. Suddenly everything is cheaper when you buy the hardware and the "service" separately.
I wonder... how soon will it be before we have blanket WiFi access/similar alternative and no longer NEED a mobile phone company to connect?
I'm hoping Google keep on evolving and make some waves re ISP/VOIP
The money I've wasted on contracts with unused minutes just to get a nice phone over the years...
Sony's Android changes are quite minimal and usually add instead of duplicate. If Google were to get stroppy about e.g. the Walkman or Album apps or their launcher or widgets it would be a shame.
Samsung Android changes resemble some cross between a mobile operating system and a horrific kitchen sink.
I can't comment on Sony's software, having not played with any of their kit in a while. But I can comment on Samsung.
My friend has a Galaxy Note II, on my advice. A brilliant piece of kit... but...
Oh the software, oh the horror, the pain, the duplication... erk!
I believe I saw on a review that there were 247 options to choose from. The menu is huge. And has many sub-menus. It took me 3 hours to set the thing up (there's no way my mate could have done it). I admit it's my first 'Droid in a couple of years, but all I was doing was syching to the cloud Exchange server and downloading his photos. And going through page, after page, of menus. With crap defaults. Wonderful geek toy though.
Anyway, my real complaint is that not only have Samsung duplicated all of Google's software, but they're no duplicating their own! In their last update, they took away his program for making sketches on photos (the reason I recoommended the damn thing to him). Bastards! I hate updates that remove software. So I was called in to try and fix it.
It's OK though. They took away the software that allows photos to be exported to the sketch app. But they have 2 other apps, that do similar things. It's just it takes about 5 clicks to get into one, and 7 or 8 for the other!
Kudos to them for bringing back the stylus though. Shame their idea of innovation seems to be to ship every feature currently in R&D - then hope for the best.
Sure, if you're in 'corporate drone' mode and forced to use what the man gives you, or you haven't a clue and just buy what the sales droid tells you, then Android (or the half eaten fruit thing) is likely to be your lot.
OTOH, this isn't 1993. There's far more scope for diversity in the ecosystem today, if people want it. Conformity to Google's way is really only an issue to those who are striving to make a living in the mass market. For those willing/wanting to serve niche markets you can still be talking about thousands, even hundreds of thousands of users, and an archtecture that is wide open to being able to scratch their itch. And allow them that smug glow of satisfaction in knowing that they are not part of the Goopleopoly. [sorry].
That battle was almost entirely server-side, as Intel never got the Itanuim down below workstation-level pricing.
Besides, it was Intel's battle to lose. Y'know the x86 part of x86-64? Intel owns that. They lost that battle, but would have gone on to win the war either way.
"That battle was almost entirely server-side"
Not really.
Itanium was marketed, by Intel etc, as "industry standard 64bit computing". Intel had repeatedly told the world that x86-64 was not going to happen as it was simply not possible.
Then AMD made AMD64, and the world quickly realised that IA64 was going to be yet another of Intel's failed attempts to succeed outside the world of legacy x86.
i thought Android manufacturers and carriers currently had their own overlays or builds on Android, which was one of the so called benefits to them. This just seems to be Google saying don't bother with your customisations, make your Androids plain vanilla like nexus and pay us some money for the privilege? I thought they could do that if they wanted anyway.
CONFUSED as to how Silver will be any different to stock Android, or can manufacturers not currently roll out stock Android?
It's "Use stock without any overlay changes and Google will pay some of your marketing costs"
So not only do you spend less on R&D to create an (almost always) trashy interface overlay that most people dislike, you get some extra cash.
Bad for the companies who were making a good overlay as they now have a hard choice to make, but good for everyone else as there is a direct incentive not to screw around with the interface.
Google will be offering the OEM design "guidelines" and there's the ~$1bn marketing push earmarked for Google Silver devices. Silver devices will get in-store kiosks (Genius Bar?) and direct support features (a la Amazon's Mayday?). A pretty good Faustian bargain to make if you're a niche OEM trying to get your presence/volumes up. If you're an established brand, you've just acquired a whole lot more competition supported by Google's marketing budget.
A true carrier/OEM gets the marketing funds anyway. The others get what they think are funds towards marketing for accepting Googles guidelines.
Following the guidelines might help or hinder consumers and manufactures, but the incentives are usually just repositioning of existing funds/resources.
A bit like how you can get a 50% discount after the price has doubled twice over... or in this case, some money up front, for surrendering any possible app sales on your own brands app store.
Does anybody here feel as mystified as I do that Android apps regularly get permission to fully hack into my phone and tablet and slurp up any and all data--including the right to send e-mails to my contact lists without my knowledge? As the old querie goes, "Where's the outrage??
Wintel would never have become Wintel if every Windows app I installed required me to accept spoofing and data grabbing as the price to use the app. I realize many of these apps are free but why do users not push back on these practices as being too steep a price to pay. Why isn't "Do No Evil" scoffed at more than it even is? What am I missing?
Applications running as pleb users in windows, Mac and *nix still have read access to your personal files in my documents or home. They can all in default configuration establish outgoing collections and do whatever they want. The only difference between wintel land and the mobile space here is that if you want access to the APIs that return that data or establish those connections then you are forced to disclose it.
"They can all in default configuration ..."
Windows applications can in principle do the data slurping under Windows as you say.
But on the whole they don't actually do it (and if they do, are they not likely to be quickly outed as malware?)
Why does the same behaviour not apply to Android ?
Once it does, then I may finally give up my Nokia Eseries. YMMV.
> But on the whole they don't actually do it (and if they do, are they not likely to be quickly outed as malware?)
Possibly, but it would be easy enough to hide if you truly cared. Many applications have legitimate reasons to contact the internet and you can't tell what is in an encrypted packet. Just google search for how many of your favourite freeware applications bundle OpenCandy into their installer. Now it is not necessarily spyware but it does look at what is installed on your computer and phones home so the boundary gets pretty blurred. And it gets installed with everything from uTorrent, Daemon tools, Foxit Reader and PDFCreator. It is nearly impossible to install an application these days without some hidden checkbox in some screen on your installer that installed some ask toolbar.
And diagnosed by Malware by whom? Seriously most AV companies are just as bad. Adobe tries to install McAfee whenever you update something.
"how many of your favourite freeware applications bundle OpenCandy into their installer."
OpenCandy => app is disqualified. Used to use uTorrent (pre OpenCandy), haven't done for years. Don't need any of the others on Wikipedia's list either.
"most AV companies are just as bad."
Absolutely. Until recently I trusted MalwareBytes. Not sure what's happened in V2 - I'm currently reserving judgement.
"[somejunk] tries to install [someotherjunk] whenever you update something."
Far too much of that about. Where alternatives available to me, this kind of driveby downloads lead to instant disqualification. YMMV. If my employer's IT department don't care about these things then I'm not going to either (at work) but at home is a different thing.
"Does anybody here feel as mystified as I do that Android apps regularly get permission to fully hack into my phone and tablet and slurp up any and all data--"
No, this after all something developed and propagated by "The Vampire Squid" aka Goldman Sachs, of the IT world.
Come on, this is Google we're talking about. What did you expect? That the app devs wouldn't take their cue from the developer of the OS?
Sauce for the goose etc.
After owning a G1 and then an SGS2 -- and eventually switching to CyanogenMod on each of them -- I've got to say that the Nexus 5 is a breath of fresh air. I've rooted the phone but I didn't have to change out the ROM because the stock one is clean, sensible, and free of crap.
If the Silver program means that all Androids will look like this, then I say, bring it on!
The article author is apparently ignorant about "real world" developments taking place around the globe, with Mozilla FirefoxOS taking hold quickly in South America and parts of Eastern Europe, as well as the imminent release of Tizen Linux based phones in same jurisdictions and North America.
Even the Ubuntu One has garnered commitments drom numerous manufacturers in other continents.
Another factor is that Tizen is ultimately controlled by the Linux Foundation., an International power-house Not-for-Profit organization, thus attracting several handset manufacturers who, like primary Tizen sponsors Intel and Samsung , will not be governed like Google does with Android.
It is critically important that technology writers, particularly those residing and focusing with a myopic view only in either USA or UK, learn about 'factually' what is taking place elsewhere.
Sounds good to me. The biggest problem with Android on non Nexus branded devices is the layer of shite the manufacturer splatters over the top of vanilla Android. It has never improved a phone, only made them worse as well as caused delays in updating due to the need to test that each update doesn't break their shovelware. If a manufacturer wants to "differentiate" themselves, they should do it by making better hardware.
>>"Doesn't Silver free vendors from patent claims while pointing all fingers to Google?"
I think so long as the OEMs are ultimately the ones charging money for the phones, they remain liable for the patent licensing costs. Any phones that Google produce and sell directly will obviously be liable, but I think doing it via subsidies and "managing production" lets them continue to pull the same clever maneouvre - making money off Android whilst others pay the cost for any patents it infringes.
No mention that what Intel did was highly illegal and has led to little to no competition in the x86 market since Core since AMD was illegally stopped from gaining market share and R&D funds for its superior Athlon processor over Intel's Netburst idiocy? Or that Microsoft was repeatedly referred to the competition authorities for anti-competitive practices and fined quite heavily?
One difference between then and now: PC operating systems licensing was a business and Microsoft had a lock on the OEMs in that the applications the user already owned or would want were almost entirely written to DOS and then Windows. Applications for mobile these days are less expensive in absolute terms, let alone after adjusting for inflation. The key applications for browsing, Internet communications, telephony, and information are available for free. Many of the apps that tie into services use standard protocols, so the smartphone's os is abstracted away.
Also OEMs saw the PC movie and may be more reluctant to cede differentiation to Google and plunge into a profit-eroding price war, though for many smartphone OEMs, there are no profits, so what do they have to lose? On the other hand, the profitable users, adapters, and forkers of Android made their money on the strength of their marketing and their brand's loyalty. Google merely gave them a means to address Apple's entry into phones and subsequent domination of the profits in the sector. For a crucial couple of years, Microsoft and its pre 7 mobile operating systems were useless in terms of competing with the iPhone.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
