"The world doesn't need another platform" Google's Andy Rubin on Windows Phone 7

[Blueychan]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/08/googles-andy-rubin-on-windows-phone-7-the-world-doesnt-need/

I think the screen shots I've seen are interesting, but look, the world doesn't need another platform. Android is free and open; I think the only reason you create another platform is for political reasons. Why doesn't the whole world run with [Android]? They don't like the people who developed, or "not invented here," but [Android] is a successful, complete, vertically integrated free platform. I encourage everybody to use it, but I'm also not under the impression that everybody will use it, which is a good thing, because competition is good for the consumer and if somebody has an an idea for a feature or a piece of functionality in their platform and Android doesn't do it, great. I think it's good to have the benefit of choice, but in the end I don't think the world needs another platform. What Android is particularly good at that I think some of the other platforms lack, besides being open, is it's really a platform that's enabling a bunch of services. When we talk about the Web and we talk about mashups, we're really talking about cloud services.

I don't get what he's trying to say. Competition is good but the world doesn't need another competitor? Is he against choices?

 

[zerocool84]

I personally think WP7 doesn't look that great but more competition is always good.

 

[Blueychan]

I personally think WP7 doesn't look that great but more competition is always good.

I love the Zune so I am going to give WP7 a try. Android doesn't do it for me...for some reason.

 

[swerus]

I love my zune hd as well, and its getting close to upgrade time. I will look at all the phones out at that time including WM7.

Google sounds bitter.

 

[Deeko]

I saw that. Sounds like sour grapes. The world didn't "need" another platform when the iPhone or Android started, either. He says it must be "political"? Huh? For a VP of a major corporation, he seems woefully ignorant to how business works. Microsoft - a player in the mobile OS game for much, much longer than Google or Apple - should just give up and let those companies take the billions of dollars available in the market, because they happen to be the current leaders? What kind of sense does that make? By his own logic, Android would never have come to be.

 

[pm]

The whole quote is very odd. It's a bit of a rambling piece that seems to indicate to me that Andy Rubin should think a bit more carefully about his reply before he starts talking.

 

[zerocool84]

The whole quote is very odd. It's a bit of a rambling piece that seems to indicate to me that Andy Rubin should think a bit more carefully about his reply before he starts talking.

He's sounding more and more like Jobs every day.

 

[SunnyD]

I don't get what he's trying to say. Competition is good but the world doesn't need another competitor? Is he against choices?

He's speaking like a true corporate type. What's not to understand? There's money to be made!

Okay, I assume the "Android is a free platform" thing probably confuses you in that regard. Yeah - Android IS free... but Google makes money hand over fist on it. Remember, Google's life-blood is ad revenue. Plain and simple. And what does just about every single app have in it? That's right, Android's ad SDK.

What does another "platform" mean to Google? More dilution in the market, less Google-based ads being seen by consumers, and all that translates into less revenue for Google. So of course they have a vested interest in NOT having more competing platforms coming out. You just have to dig a little deeper than you do with something like Apple and Palm to get to the soft and chewy truth.

 

[Deeko]

He's speaking like a true corporate type. What's not to understand? There's money to be made!

Okay, I assume the "Android is a free platform" thing probably confuses you in that regard. Yeah - Android IS free... but Google makes money hand over fist on it. Remember, Google's life-blood is ad revenue. Plain and simple. And what does just about every single app have in it? That's right, Android's ad SDK.

What does another "platform" mean to Google? More dilution in the market, less Google-based ads being seen by consumers, and all that translates into less revenue for Google. So of course they have a vested interest in NOT having more competing platforms coming out. You just have to dig a little deeper than you do with something like Apple and Palm to get to the soft and chewy truth.

Of course Google has a vested interest in Android being the platform of choice. What's odd is his wording against wp7. Doesn't need another platform? Political? Come on Rubin.

 

[gorcorps]

ROFL

I like how he claims the world doesn't need another platform, when Android IS the newest platform. Windows mobile is older than current phone OS'... so he can suck it. I mean I don't LIKE WM and I think 7 will be pretty bad, but what he's claiming makes him sound like a d-bag that wasn't privy to the industry past 3 years ago.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

the majority of apple users use an iphone right? that leaves Windows users either on Black Berries or Android. Why would windows users want a Win7 phone

imo someone is concerned

I love the idea of a Windows phone I just hope the hardware delivers and from what I've been seeing it's on par with most other devices - nothing spectacular

 

[Oyeve]

I for one am looking forward to windows based phones. Not because I want one but because competition can only benefit us as it will force them to make existing products better.

 

[tatteredpotato]

What do you guys expect a Google employee to say? That WP7 is needed because Android isn't good enough and can't do everything WP7 can?

 

[Deeko]

What do you guys expect a Google employee to say? That WP7 is needed because Android isn't good enough and can't do everything WP7 can?

No one is expecting him to say "yea wp7 rules" or anything like that. Its just his choice of retort was...well, seemingly aloof of how business works. Seriously, what "political reasons" could he possibly be talking about?

 

[Fingolfin269]

No one is expecting him to say "yea wp7 rules" or anything like that. Its just his choice of retort was...well, seemingly aloof of how business works. Seriously, what "political reasons" could he possibly be talking about?

Yeah I've read it a couple of times now and it really just doesn't make sense. Sometimes I wonder how people can get so high up in these companies and say things that are just... stupid?

 

[tokie]

the majority of apple users use an iphone right? that leaves Windows users either on Black Berries or Android. Why would windows users want a Win7 phone

I don't believe that statistic. Anecdotally, most Apple users I know IRL (myself included) have BlackBerries. Most of the people I know with iPhones have Windows computers. There really is no lock-in for either platform, seeing as how you have iTunes for Windows, as well as BlackBerry Manager for Mac OS X.

 

[theeedude]

What does WP7 do that could not have been accomplished with a custom build of open source Android, while retaining compatibility with existing Android software, and retaining multitasking and cut and paste. What Rubin is saying is that reasons for creating a new WP7 platform aren't technical but political, which is to have a platform they have full control over. I tend to agree. Which is not to say that it's not a legitimate reason, MS is more than welcome to field its own platform if they want to, but what Rubin is saying rings true to me. Android is perfectly capable of supporting WP7 style UI, and underlying OS is better, open, and has an installed base. One reason for WP7 is for MS to have a platform where they can lock users to Bing. They've tried it it on Fascinate, and there is a major backlash that they ruined the phone. Not so sure I want to buy a WP7 phone where everything is locked to this search engine.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Not so sure I want to buy a WP7 phone where everything is locked to this search engine.

I guess that's kind of like buying an Android device from Verizon.

 

[theeedude]

I guess that's kind of like buying an Android device from Verizon.

That's exactly right. Noone is going to come out and claim that locking Fascinate into Bing is a technical and not a political/financial decision. I could see if WP7 came up with something amazing that could not be accomplished, much faster and cheaper, I must add, by a creative build of Android. But they haven't. They are behind Android in features and are introducing a new platform for the sake of introducing their own platform. If they simply added the Zune UI and Bing to Android, it would feel the same to end user, but they would have multitasking and be able to run all Android apps. So MS is not adding technical value to the marketplace, just more fragmentation.

 

[Deeko]

What does WP7 do that could not have been accomplished with a custom build of open source Android, while retaining compatibility with existing Android software, and retaining multitasking and cut and paste. What Rubin is saying is that reasons for creating a new WP7 platform aren't technical but political, which is to have a platform they have full control over. I tend to agree. Which is not to say that it's not a legitimate reason, MS is more than welcome to field its own platform if they want to, but what Rubin is saying rings true to me. Android is perfectly capable of supporting WP7 style UI, and underlying OS is better, open, and has an installed base. One reason for WP7 is for MS to have a platform where they can lock users to Bing. They've tried it it on Fascinate, and there is a major backlash that they ruined the phone. Not so sure I want to buy a WP7 phone where everything is locked to this search engine.

Of course Microsoft could just write Android software, but why would they? They are an OS company at their core. They were in the mobile business a decade longer than Google. Why would they drop that business, should they be worried about hurting Rubin's feelings? It's not political, they are in the mobile OS business for the same reason as Google. There's money to be made.

 

[theeedude]

Of course Microsoft could just write Android software, but why would they? They are an OS company at their core. They were in the mobile business a decade longer than Google. Why would they drop that business, should they be worried about hurting Rubin's feelings? It's not political, they are in the mobile OS business for the same reason as Google. There's money to be made.

They don't have to worry about Rubin's feelings, but that doesn't mean he isn't right. It is political. Google makes money off search, the OS is free and open source. Noone is stopping MS from taking Android, integrating Bing search and Zune style interface into it, and selling devices with it and making money. Users would be better off technically because they would have multitasking and be able to run all Android apps. But then MS wouldn't have control over the platform, so political turf war considerations outweigh technical ones. MS just can't bring itself to competing on someone else's turf. They want to build their own.

 

[Deeko]

That argument might make more sense if Microsoft were new to the mobile business, but they aren't. They have been making mobile operating systems since Google search was a pipe dream. Realistically, Google, who is not an OS company, could have just kept making mobile software for existing platforms.. Windows Mobile 6.5 and below may have been closed source, but they were very open and customizable. My HD2 defaults to Opera Mobile, Google search, and Telenav.

Rubin's argument - and yours - work better against Google in 2008 than Microsoft now. But in the end, no matter how people want to spin it, its all about money. If you are running the platform, you have more potential to make profits, so naturally companies with the resources want to do it.

 

[theeedude]

That argument might make more sense if Microsoft were new to the mobile business, but they aren't. They have been making mobile operating systems since Google search was a pipe dream. Realistically, Google, who is not an OS company, could have just kept making mobile software for existing platforms.. Windows Mobile 6.5 and below may have been closed source, but they were very open and customizable. My HD2 defaults to Opera Mobile, Google search, and Telenav.

Rubin's argument - and yours - work better against Google in 2008 than Microsoft now. But in the end, no matter how people want to spin it, its all about money. If you are running the platform, you have more potential to make profits, so naturally companies with the resources want to do it.

Google actually did bring something new to the table, an free open source free smartphone OS. MS WP7 is bringing a wannabe iOS, another closed system. But it's not actually bringing any new capabilities.

 

[Deeko]

Google actually did bring something new to the table, an free open source free smartphone OS. MS WP7 is bringing a wannabe iOS, another closed system. But it's not actually bringing any new capabilities.

The Zune and xbox integration are fairly unique, and the home screen design is also pretty new as well. Besides, whether you think Android was more unique than WP7 or not doesn't really validate or invalidate Rubin's comments.

 

[theeedude]

The Zune and xbox integration are fairly unique, and the home screen design is also pretty new as well. Besides, whether you think Android was more unique than WP7 or not doesn't really validate or invalidate Rubin's comments.

They could have made a Zune app, and Zune style home screen for Android. That is just app and GUI, not platform itself. As a platform, WP7 isn't bringing anything new to the table. It's just another fiefdom, what Rubin describes as political reasons.