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

[Blueychan]

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.

Rubin's comment was nonesense and I don't think you are getting it at all. Just stop it.

 

[theeedude]

Rubin's comment was nonesense and I don't think you are getting it at all. Just stop it.

Says a guy who didn't get Rubin's comment to begin with.

 

[Blueychan]

Says a guy who didn't get Rubin's comment to begin with.

I was making a point that he wasn't making any sense...

 

[theeedude]

I was making a point that he wasn't making any sense...

To you, which is not surprising.

 

[Deeko]

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.

*sigh* no. Its not. Microsoft has been a "fiefdom" in mobile since 1996 - two years before Google was even a company, 12 years before Android was released, 11 years before the iPhone. What you are describing is *exactly* what Google did. Rather than continuing to make software integrated into other established platforms, they went out and started a new "fiefdom" in an already crowded market.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. They're a company whose job is to make money, and there are more potential profits if your company provides both the platform and the software. Its not a "political" move, its a simple business decision. On top of that, his comment that "the world doesn't need another platform" can't be skewed any way other than bitter, sour grapes.

Like I said above, no one expects him to come out and praise WP7 or say that he's happy WP7 is coming, but his comments are simply off base. You can both prefer Android as a platform and understand that at the same time.

 

[theeedude]

There is nothing wrong with it, but it still does not disprove that it was a political and not a technical move. WP7 is a fresh start for MS.

 

[Deeko]

Its a "fresh start" for a company that's been in the business for nearly a decade and a half. OS X was a "fresh start" for Apple, but they weren't starting a new "fiefdom", just releasing a new version of their system. Its not like they're saying "Hey! Thats a market that makes money, I want to get in on that!" That's what Google did with Android, and what Microsoft did with game consoles. When it comes to mobile, Microsoft has been there for a long time now, and its really just an extension of how they built their empire - operating systems. There is nothing "political" about WP7. WM6x wasn't doing well, so they redesigned it. Its a very simple, sensible, and predictable move. Rubin just doesn't like it, because he wants everyone to run Android.

Its laughable that anyone thinks Microsoft - and established OS company - should totally give up on a business they've been a part of for 14 years because a new competitor passed them in the past year.

 

[theeedude]

All the arguments you gave are political and not technical. You still have not given one technical reason why WP7 is better than just building the Zune interface on top of Android.

 

[zerocool84]

All the arguments you gave are political and not technical. You still have not given one technical reason why WP7 is better than just building the Zune interface on top of Android.

Because as we know, building an interface on top of an OS isn't the optimal way because you're still stuck with the limitations of the base OS. HTC skinned WM6.5 as much as they could but it still sucked cus it was still basically WM. Even skinning Android isn't the best either cus you're still stuck with core Android. They decided they didn't want to skin something which is great. They wanted control over every aspect of the device which as shown in sells that many people like the company to have control over every aspect of their device. I don't like WP7 but they wanted to revamp everything which they needed to do to get into the 21ct century. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Deeko]

All the arguments you gave are political and not technical. You still have not given one technical reason why WP7 is better than just building the Zune interface on top of Android.

Conversely, you never gave a technical reason as to why Google made Android, when they already made Google search, gmail, and maps apps for Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and iPhone. There was nothing technically wrong with those platforms that prevented Google from supporting their business in mobile.

My point, that I've made several times now, is that Rubin's comments apply more to Google - who did not have a mobile operating system before 2008 - than they do to Microsoft.

Also, you've never explained why Microsoft SHOULD give up on operating systems and just release Zune software everywhere else. There's no "technical" reason for that, either.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but Google and Microsoft are both companies trying to maximize their profits, and you have the highest potential for profits when you own the platform. Its not "political", its a simple, and obvious, business decision.

I know you love Android, and you refuse to accept any criticism of anything Android related, but seriously - Rubin's comments can be logically taken as nothing but sour grapes. There's nothing "political" about an OS company releasing a new version of their OS, in a sector they've been making OSes in for the last 14 years.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Huh, interesting he used the word political, Google has been coming under increasing scrutiny over privacy issues...

 

[theeedude]

You are making a value judgment, I am not. I am not saying MS is right or wrong. Just commenting on what Rubin said, which is that we don't don't need another platform and reasons for creating one are political. Obviously he wasn't referring to Democrats and Republicans, he was referring to control of platforms. You can call it "business" decision, but it's a bit more than that. MS could have put its money making services, Bing, Zune, etc on Android, which is open source and allows for such modifications. But they would then have to relinquish control of the platform, which would be a political decision.

Name one thing that WP7 does that could not have been done with an Android build instead of reinventing the bicycle. I have a Zune HD, and it's fine, but it would be better if it could run all the Android apps and have multitasking. WP7 users will have to wait for MS to replicate all the functions and app ecosystem that Android already has and is giving away as open source. It is purely for MS to have control and is basically a waste of time and effort from the user's point of view.

 

[zerocool84]

You are making a value judgment, I am not. I am not saying MS is right or wrong. Just commenting on what Rubin said, which is that we don't don't need another platform and reasons for creating one are political. Obviously he wasn't referring to Democrats and Republicans, he was referring to control of platforms. You can call it "business" decision, but it's a bit more than that. MS could have put its money making services, Bing, Zune, etc on Android, which is open source and allows for such modifications. But they would then have to relinquish control of the platform, which would be a political decision.

Name one thing that WP7 does that could not have been done with an Android build instead of reinventing the bicycle. I have a Zune HD, and it's fine, but it would be better if it could run all the Android apps and have multitasking. WP7 users will have to wait for MS to replicate all the functions and app ecosystem that Android already has and is giving away as open source. It is purely for MS to have control and is basically a waste of time and effort from the user's point of view.

Why didn't Apple just put stuff on Windows Mobile to make money? Why didn't Google just use iPhone for it's ad revenue? It goes both ways.

 

[theeedude]

Conversely, you never gave a technical reason as to why Google made Android, when they already made Google search, gmail, and maps apps for Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and iPhone. There was nothing technically wrong with those platforms that prevented Google from supporting their business in mobile.
My point, that I've made several times now, is that Rubin's comments apply more to Google - who did not have a mobile operating system before 2008 - than they do to Microsoft.

Even if all of the above is true and Google was also political, that doesn't prove that Microsoft is not political, which is Rubin's point.
Also, Google saw a landscape of proprietary platforms, and created a free open source platform and gave it away. That was something new. MS is just adding another proprietary platform.

Also, you've never explained why Microsoft SHOULD give up on operating systems and just release Zune software everywhere else. There's no "technical" reason for that, either.

Because I never said they should give up on it. If they want to reinvent the bicycle and create another proprietary OS, fine, but there is no technical reason to do so, and fairly dubious business reasons. Google is not stopping MS from making an Android clone that has all Bing instead of all Google on it, and milking it for search revenue.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but Google and Microsoft are both companies trying to maximize their profits, and you have the highest potential for profits when you own the platform. Its not "political", its a simple, and obvious, business decision.

If having your own platform is so obvious for the highest profit potential, Nokia and Palm are just swimming in dough.
It is not as slam dunk business decision as you claim. The business side is that the profits and revenue come from search and advertising. Nothing is stopping MS from taking open source Android, replacing all the Google search and advertising with its own, and milking it for all the profit while Google has to eat all most of the development costs.

I know you love Android, and you refuse to accept any criticism of anything Android related, but seriously - Rubin's comments can be logically taken as nothing but sour grapes. There's nothing "political" about an OS company releasing a new version of their OS, in a sector they've been making OSes in for the last 14 years.

That is your opinion, how are his comments sour grapes when Android is destroying MS efforts in mobile space? More like WP7 is Microsoft's sour grapes against Android. I have a Zune HD, and it's fine, but there is nothing there that MS couldn't have done by just taking Android source code and adding their own browser and interface. Then I would have the same experience, except would be able to run Android apps and have multitasking. So as a user, there are no technical reasons to have a new platform, just the opposite. It's just Microsoft's political reasons to have their own proprietary platform where they call the shots.

 

[Blueychan]

To you, which is not surprising.

He was rambling and his comment was contradictory. I think most people would see it that way. I am sorry to step on your toes Android fanboi.

 

[theeedude]

He was rambling and his comment was contradictory. I think most people would see it that way. I am sorry to step on your toes Android fanboi.

Whatever you say, buddy. This argument is way over your head. Maybe find another thread to post in so you don't distract people having a serious discussion. Thanks.

 

[MrX8503]

Political or technical, I don't see why it matters. Microsoft has been in the mobile space for a very long time and creating an OS with Android roots would not make sense for Microsoft. I would say Google creating their own OS was more political because they could of created software for the WinMo platform.

 

[Deeko]

Even if all of the above is true and Google was also political, that doesn't prove that Microsoft is not political, which is Rubin's point.
Also, Google saw a landscape of proprietary platforms, and created a free open source platform and gave it away. That was something new. MS is just adding another proprietary platform.

How is it "political" to simply release a new version of your platform, in a space you've been consistently releasing operating systems in for the last 14 years? I will repeat...yet again...the company that broke their mold in the mobile world is Google, not Microsoft.

Windows Mobile was not open source, but it was about as open of a platform as possible. Other than the kernel itself, you can swap out just about anything you want with your own custom software. As for "giving it away" vs licensing, well, Google still holds the keys to gmail and the Android market, so they maintain plenty of power over Android if they choose - like they did with Skyhook.

Because I never said they should give up on it. If they want to reinvent the bicycle and create another proprietary OS, fine, but there is no technical reason to do so, and fairly dubious business reasons. Google is not stopping MS from making an Android clone that has all Bing instead of all Google on it, and milking it for search revenue.

Again, though, there is no reason for them to do that. They're an OS company. They have their own OS. They've had their own mobile OS for years. There's no reason for them to give up on it in favor of a custom version of Android.

Also - how do you know Google would let them into the Android ecosystem? The OS is free, but access to the Market is solely at Google's discretion. What makes you think that even if Microsoft inexplicably wanted to, that Google would let them in all the way?

If having your own platform is so obvious for the highest profit potential, Nokia and Palm are just swimming in dough.
It is not as slam dunk business decision as you claim. The business side is that the profits and revenue come from search and advertising. Nothing is stopping MS from taking open source Android, replacing all the Google search and advertising with its own, and milking it for all the profit while Google has to eat all most of the development costs.

For your first comment, you're either willfully twisting my words (aka, trolling) or you just don't understand the meaning of the word "potential". The highest potential is there when you control the platform. That doesn't mean every company that tries it will succeed, don't even attempt to twist my words into that. I already responded to your second part here. There is both no reason for Microsoft to do that, nor is there any evidence that Google would let "Microdroid" into the Android ecosystem.

That is your opinion, how are his comments sour grapes when Android is destroying MS efforts in mobile space? More like WP7 is Microsoft's sour grapes against Android. I have a Zune HD, and it's fine, but there is nothing there that MS couldn't have done by just taking Android source code and adding their own browser and interface. Then I would have the same experience, except would be able to run Android apps and have multitasking. So as a user, there are no technical reasons to have a new platform, just the opposite. It's just Microsoft's political reasons to have their own proprietary platform where they call the shots.

There's nothing that stopped Google from doing that before Android, either. I have to repeat....again....that Rubin's comments apply to 2008 Google a whole lot more than 2010 Microsoft.

No one - including you - thinks Microsoft would make the very political decision to abandon the OS game and move to software only on other platforms. Nobody. You might want them to, because you want Android to be on top, but you, nor Rubin, nor anyone thinks that's what they'd do. They are doing what they've been doing for a very long time now, making Rubin's comments misplaced.

Look, this is just repeating itself over and over again, and frankly no one else in this thread seems to agree with you, so unless you have something new to say, I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion.

 

[Deeko]

Political or technical, I don't see why it matters. Microsoft has been in the mobile space for a very long time and creating an OS with Android roots would not make sense for Microsoft. I would say Google creating their own OS was more political because they could of created software for the WinMo platform.

Stop the presses....MrX and I agree on something! :awe:

 

[theeedude]

Political or technical, I don't see why it matters. Microsoft has been in the mobile space for a very long time and creating an OS with Android roots would not make sense for Microsoft. I would say Google creating their own OS was more political because they could of created software for the WinMo platform.

For Google it was political too. If they didn't make Android, they would have been hostage to OS vendors to allow their platform and services on their devices. That is different situation from MS though, because Android is free and open source, so MS would not be hostage to Google, since it could just take Android and build a version with their services, even without Google's permission.
Instead they are introducing another proprietary platform, which is nothing new. They are basically Apple wannabes.

 

[theeedude]

How is it "political" to simply release a new version of your platform, in a space you've been consistently releasing operating systems in for the last 14 years? I will repeat...yet again...the company that broke their mold in the mobile world is Google, not Microsoft.

Windows Mobile was not open source, but it was about as open of a platform as possible. Other than the kernel itself, you can swap out just about anything you want with your own custom software. As for "giving it away" vs licensing, well, Google still holds the keys to gmail and the Android market, so they maintain plenty of power over Android if they choose - like they did with Skyhook.



Again, though, there is no reason for them to do that. They're an OS company. They have their own OS. They've had their own mobile OS for years. There's no reason for them to give up on it in favor of a custom version of Android.

Also - how do you know Google would let them into the Android ecosystem? The OS is free, but access to the Market is solely at Google's discretion. What makes you think that even if Microsoft inexplicably wanted to, that Google would let them in all the way?



For your first comment, you're either willfully twisting my words (aka, trolling) or you just don't understand the meaning of the word "potential". The highest potential is there when you control the platform. That doesn't mean every company that tries it will succeed, don't even attempt to twist my words into that. I already responded to your second part here. There is both no reason for Microsoft to do that, nor is there any evidence that Google would let "Microdroid" into the Android ecosystem.



There's nothing that stopped Google from doing that before Android, either. I have to repeat....again....that Rubin's comments apply to 2008 Google a whole lot more than 2010 Microsoft.

No one - including you - thinks Microsoft would make the very political decision to abandon the OS game and move to software only on other platforms. Nobody. You might want them to, because you want Android to be on top, but you, nor Rubin, nor anyone thinks that's what they'd do. They are doing what they've been doing for a very long time now, making Rubin's comments misplaced.

Look, this is just repeating itself over and over again, and frankly no one else in this thread seems to agree with you, so unless you have something new to say, I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion.

Post is too long and most of it has nothing to do with contradicting what Rubin is saying. Could you maybe distill it a little bit?
MS could have made its own Android market and integrated its build with live.com/bing. There is nothing stopping them from doing so. Just because you've been doing something for a long time, doesn't mean the reasons for keeping doing it despite getting your butt convincingly kicked by a free open source OS aren't political. MS is not a lone in that. What is the need for another closed platform, I really don't see it. What is WP7 delivering that it could not have delivered just as well if not better on an Android build?

 

[zerocool84]

Post is too long and most of it has nothing to do with contradicting what Rubin is saying. Could you maybe distill it a little bit?
MS could have made its own Android market and integrated its build with live.com/bing. There is nothing stopping them from doing so. Just because you've been doing something for a long time, doesn't mean the reasons for keeping doing it despite getting your butt convincingly kicked by a free open source OS aren't political. MS is not a lone in that. What is the need for another closed platform, I really don't see it. What is WP7 delivering that it could not have delivered just as well if not better on an Android build?

Why does there even need to be a discussion? Everyone wants their own platform so they can make the most money. Apple did it, Google did it, Palm did it, MS is doing it all over again, everyone does it. Everyone of these people could have built upon an existing platform but they didn't. Don't see what the problem is.

 

[MrX8503]

For Google it was political too. If they didn't make Android, they would have been hostage to OS vendors to allow their platform and services on their devices. That is different situation from MS though, because Android is free and open source, so MS would not be hostage to Google, since it could just take Android and build a version with their services, even without Google's permission.
Instead they are introducing another proprietary platform, which is nothing new. They are basically Apple wannabes.

Just because Android is free and open source doesn't mean that Google is not in control. They're making money off of every Android device that is being sold.

 

[ew915]

Google charges money to the cellphone makers for; market, maps, voice... all the stuff you thought it was free cost money and you thought google was giving away everything free.

Google is no better than apple nor apple is any worse than MS everyone is in the game to make money and that creates competition in the market. I don't feel any loyalty to google nor anyone should feel identified to any brand but sadly that is not the case, people chose to take sides and it always turns into an ugly flame war when it comes to iOS, android or Winmo7.

 

[theeedude]

Google charges money to the cellphone makers for; market, maps, voice... all the stuff you thought it was free cost money and you thought google was giving away everything free.

Google is no better than apple nor apple is any worse than MS everyone is in the game to make money and that creates competition in the market. I don't feel any loyalty to google nor anyone should feel identified to any brand but sadly that is not the case, people chose to take sides and it always turns into an ugly flame war when it comes to iOS, android or Winmo7.

The platform source code is free and open. MS could have just added its own app store, Bing maps, and its own voice services instead of reinventing the bicycle from scratch.