Google will abandon Android | Hacker News Reader

Google will abandon Android

ceklog.kindel.com

33 pointscek16 comments

I really do not like this writing style. Everything is presented as fact, without any attributions or reasoning or proof. This way I do not know what is an actual fact and what is just speculation and conjecture on part of the writer.

For example while reading the article I thought that Google had actually announced a tablet called play. Then towards the end I started getting suspicious, and did a Google search and seems like there is no such announcement. Play is just a name of a marketplace as far as i can tell.

I still am not sure whether there is an announcement or a rumor of a tablet called Play.

If you want to be taken seriously you should qualify the more drastic assertions you are making. You can use terms like "I believe", or "so and so announced" or "as my analysis below shows", etc. Even the more wimpy "sources say" or "rumor has it" is better than reporting rumors as facts.

Of course it does not seem that the writer is even reporting rumors as facts here. He is reporting wild-ass speculations or even fantasies as facts.

OP here.

Totally appreciate feedback on writing style. It's valuable to me.

FWIW, though, the very first sentence of the post links to this WSJ article about Google launching a tablet:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405270230340470...

I have a (likely unfounded) bias against writing "I think..." or "I beleive...". I think (!) it comes from being railed against by an English teacher to be less wordy.

I was always taught the same thing. Most people use "I think" or "in my opinion" in a way that weakens their persuasive argument (what high school students typically have to write), so forbidding it forces them to write with confidence in their position. It's part of the formality of that type of writing.

In contrast, blogs are much more personal. I think it's ok to say that your statement is your opinion in that context, especially when you're writing a prediction like this.

Personally, I like it as it is. You took a bold stance and made a radical prediction, forcing the reader to think about how your inevitable future contrasts with their own predictions. If only that happened more on the internet.

It's an interesting move but not sure how well it will work. The heft of Android adoption was due to marketing and promotion from device manufacturers and carriers blocked out of the new wave Apple/ATT smart phones. That marketing heft is likely move to Win8, leaving Play in a very weak position.

Google owns an ecosystem, that is something WP7 has not. Win8 will have difficulties with the Windows legacy. Play will probably run Chrome what is a formidable brand, Google want's to go ChromeOS in the long term anyway. Don't forget it is Google Play, so the most valuable brand in the world is a part in it.

I don't think Google's position is that bad, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Why do you expect anyone to have a significant interest in marketing Windows 8? I can think of at least half a dozen reasons why they would want to studiously avoid it: For one thing, the impetus behind the original Android push has expired, because now most everyone has got both Android and iOS available as options, so there is no need to claim something new as the answer to a competitor who has something you don't. Moreover, Windows is non-exclusive, so even if it was something "new and different" it wouldn't be anything your competitors can't also provide. At the same time, Microsoft's sweetheart deal with Nokia provides a significant disincentive for non-Nokia OEMs to push Windows. In addition to that, adding a third major platform would increase costs for exactly the same reasons that everyone is always complaining about Android fragmentation. And because Windows-on-ARM doesn't run "real Windows" programs, people who bought ARM tablets expecting them to do so will be returning them in droves, creating huge headaches for anyone who sells them in quantity. There is also the problem of Microsoft being a bit of a dangerous character; if other companies allow them to claim a significant foothold in the tablet market, there is no small chance that they will eventually be able to leverage the desktop Windows monopoly into a mobile monopoly, which would leave the OEMs and carriers at Microsoft's mercy going forward.

I mean why do you think nobody is pushing WP7?

This post is about branding, only.

OP here.

Is it? Yes, the thrust of the article is about GOOG abandoning the Android brand. However, it follows that if GOOG is to focus on Play as the brand for tablets (and phones) they will also further invest in Play exclusive technologies.

Today all new platform features GOOG builds are put into "Android". If they are serious about a new brand they will start building platform features that will NOT go into Android.

You mean like Gmail, Youtube, Books, Music?

I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but perhaps as events play out I'll prove right...

Google won't stop producing Android releases with new Android features for manufacturers.

If they even thought it wasn't worth the effort just to hand it off to manufacturers to destroy, they would be putting their main properties at the mercy of two fierce competitors: Apple and Microsoft.

Android sucks. I'll talk about that in a different blog post.

Nevertheless, compared to nothing at all, Android is awesome for Google, for the casual phone owner (have you noticed that "feature phones" are vanishing?) - and that includes the teen demographic - and awesome for open source.

Android's open source strategy sucks too - note Honeycomb or the lack thereof. But Google is a white knight in shining armor compared to Apple...

What do you mean by lack of Honeycomb? It was released with ICS, so not in a timely fashion (Honeycomb seemed like a rush job), but it is certainly available.

I know the commits are in the commit log, so yeah, you can dig out Honeycomb if you want...

I'm referring to all the drama when Honeycomb was _shipping_ on tablets but the source wasn't released yet.

I dislike the idea of authors submitting their own articles. It could be argued that the point was to produce an interesting debate on the subject on HN, but: 1) there is no news here, only speculations, which are, as hristov said, badly put in a matter-of-fact way 2) the title is misleading to think that the problem is in the platform, not the brand, which is in fact discussed

As far as Android branding is concerned, I would say that the brand is still solid, it seems that the "android phone" idea is becoming widely spread (and the only idea that can parry iPhone, since Nokia is taking a nose dive, and Windows phone is not living up to the expectations), and changing to something new at this point seems like a bad idea. Sure, Google could even push "Google Tracktor" brand, but why waste all the marketing and re-starting, when you could go with "Android certified", or similar term that will be familiar and clearly note the prestige of the new product in some way?

It could be argued that it is you who needs to read the HN Guidelines.

If anything, your comment directly contradicts the Guidelines, while the OP's post does not and has clearly garnered significant interest based on its content otherwise it would not have been upvoted to the front page. Here is the relevant Guidelines entry:

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."

I think this is confusing two issues.

Firstly, no matter how much various techies might desire Android to be similar to the iPhone ecosystem and the way Apple updates it's products, it isn't going to happen because handset manufacturers can't recoup the cost of maintenance in the same way Apple does (via services - the AppStore / iTunes etc).

Secondly, where there is a hint of reality in the article, Google are freaked out by the relative success of Amazon with it's tablet offering vs the piss poor generic Android tablet sales. Amazon and Google are in competition with each other much more than Google is with the handset vendors so I could understand a pure play Google tablet to compete on the basis of it's services vs Amazon.

I just picked up an Android phone and one of the first updates changed the Android Market to Google Play, which first of all was very confusing, and second of all, struck me as a desperate rebranding of the App Store at a time when Google (I think) should have been marketing it's existing app store and exerting control over the perversions that carriers were/are inflicting on Android handsets, a Genuine Android certification program or something of that sort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com