[bb10adopter111]

Very detailed article in the New York Times about how Android is both ubiquitous and largely unprofitable:

http://nyti.ms/1euC03F

Posted via CB10

[Kris Simundson]

Android is open-source. How many open-source projects can be considered as truely profitable?

Even with the likes of CyanogenMod members, they built off open-source and now are reaping the profit with their closed-source products ontop of their open-source CyanogenOS, which is based off AOSP.

Google is the one that is profitable in the scenario, not Android.

(Can't open article at work as it's filtered for some stupid reason, but I'm assuming since it's the NYT Paper, they're taking the more common shot at looking at open-source revenue vs where the real revenue is being made)

[LazyEvul]

I wouldn't say the future of Android as an OS is particularly murky. The future of Android as Google's OS? Maybe a little precarious in the long-term, as the article does point out a number of challenges. However, Google has lots of time and money to make it work.

But even if Google were to hypothetically disappear, you'd still have companies like Cyanogen, OnePlus, and Xiaomi maintaining custom ROMs. OEMs like Samsung could conceivably carry the torch forward as well - Samsung already has their own app store and a relationship with Microsoft, who could provide alternatives to Google apps and services. Such is the advantage of open-source software - the code will live on with or without Google.

[Ment]

The only murkiness in Android is how Google is going to relate it to Chrome and ChromeOS. Increasingly, all three are coming together in unity and a few years from now there may be little user experience differentiation from moving from one to another. Chromebook has all your Android apps. Chrome browser has all your Android apps. And your phone, if it is Chrome compatible also has your Android apps.

[BCITMike]

I wouldn't say the future of Android as an OS is particularly murky. The future of Android as Google's OS? Maybe a little precarious in the long-term, as the article does point out a number of challenges. However, Google has lots of time and money to make it work.

But even if Google were to hypothetically disappear, you'd still have companies like Cyanogen, OnePlus, and Xiaomi maintaining custom ROMs. OEMs like Samsung could conceivably carry the torch forward as well - Samsung already has their own app store and a relationship with Microsoft, who could provide alternatives to Google apps and services. Such is the advantage of open-source software - the code will live on with or without Google.

Those companies don't seem to be innovators, just building on top of Google's efforts.

In other words, you could see more android 5.x, but 6.x would be doubtful.

Posted via CB10

[LazyEvul]

Those companies don't seem to be innovators, just building on top of Google's efforts.

In other words, you could see more android 5.x, but 6.x would be doubtful.

Posted via CB10

That's quite far from true, and if you've ever dabbled in custom ROMs or different Android OEMs you'd know that the differences can be quite substantial, both visually and under the hood. OEMs have introduced a lot of features that vanilla Android used to be missing or is still missing, from basic things like Bluetooth LE (only added to vanilla Android in 4.3), to more advanced features, like the Privacy Guard in Cyanogen OS that allows you to disable individual permissions for apps.

Even if it were true, however, these OEMs would have a vested interest in taking on a greater role developing Android if Google were to abandon it - for them, it would either be that or build an entirely new OS, and BB10 seems to have proven that the latter is very far from easy in today's mobile environment.

[BCITMike]

That's quite far from true, and if you've ever dabbled in custom ROMs or different Android OEMs you'd know that the differences can be quite substantial, both visually and under the hood. OEMs have introduced a lot of features that vanilla Android used to be missing or is still missing, from basic things like Bluetooth LE (only added to vanilla Android in 4.3), to more advanced features, like the Privacy Guard in Cyanogen OS that allows you to disable individual permissions for apps.

Even if it were true, however, these OEMs would have a vested interest in taking on a greater role developing Android if Google were to abandon it - for them, it would either be that or build an entirely new OS, and BB10 seems to have proven that the latter is very far from easy in today's mobile environment.

Far from true? What has Cyanogen committed back to AOSP that would be big enough to hear about? I hear about Microsoft contributing to linux kernel and to Android, but I don't hear about contributions from others. But I don't follow Android sites to really know.

No, I don't have much direct experience, only from reading complaints from other people. I did try and get into Cyanogen with an older Android Droid 2.3.3, and it was a large waste of time. It disabled stuff to make it boot faster. It didn't add functionality, and it broke stuff.

The takeaway I got is that while they add functionality, they always break something major (GPS, Bluetooth, camera, etc), usually something important. Having to make things work without breaking things eats up a ton more development time.

For other things, these are things that require root access and can use the things that were intentionally locked out of but were already there. Extending existing functionality is far from putting in the base code in the first place.

For Android OEMs, they make their money on hardware and selling new hardware over and over. They don't have the deep pockets to support devices and OS' for several years. There is no incentive for long term support or development, only quick sales. Some of these OEM's are taking drivers provided to them by the chipset vendor and putting it into a ROM, nothing else. That is far from developing drivers and features themselves. This is why BlackBerry has to charge more, they need to pay lots of salaries for OS development, testing, etc. The OEM's would look after their own interests and not play nicely with others. It would get even more fragmented and less a big OS moving along as a collective.

If Google abandoned Android, many OEM's would leave because the additional software burden would negate any profits they would make on the hardware. So I'm not sure I agree with your rational. In fact, if Google abandoned Android, it would be likely that at least one of those OEM's would license BlackBerry. I wonder what the Android tax (to Microsoft) per unit is now, and what it would be to BlackBerry. More, I'm sure, but might not be a lot more.

[LazyEvul]

Far from true? What has Cyanogen committed back to AOSP that would be big enough to hear about? I hear about Microsoft contributing to linux kernel and to Android, but I don't hear about contributions from others. But I don't follow Android sites to really know.

No, I don't have much direct experience, only from reading complaints from other people. I did try and get into Cyanogen with an older Android Droid 2.3.3, and it was a large waste of time. It disabled stuff to make it boot faster. It didn't add functionality, and it broke stuff.

The takeaway I got is that while they add functionality, they always break something major (GPS, Bluetooth, camera, etc), usually something important. Having to make things work without breaking things eats up a ton more development time.

For other things, these are things that require root access and can use the things that were intentionally locked out of but were already there. Extending existing functionality is far from putting in the base code in the first place.

For Android OEMs, they make their money on hardware and selling new hardware over and over. They don't have the deep pockets to support devices and OS' for several years. There is no incentive for long term support or development, only quick sales. Some of these OEM's are taking drivers provided to them by the chipset vendor and putting it into a ROM, nothing else. That is far from developing drivers and features themselves. This is why BlackBerry has to charge more, they need to pay lots of salaries for OS development, testing, etc. The OEM's would look after their own interests and not play nicely with others. It would get even more fragmented and less a big OS moving along as a collective.

If Google abandoned Android, many OEM's would leave because the additional software burden would negate any profits they would make on the hardware. So I'm not sure I agree with your rational. In fact, if Google abandoned Android, it would be likely that at least one of those OEM's would license BlackBerry. I wonder what the Android tax (to Microsoft) per unit is now, and what it would be to BlackBerry. More, I'm sure, but might not be a lot more.

Cyanogen has come a very, very long way since 2.3.3 - they are their own software company now. CyanogenMod, the custom ROM you're referring to having issues with, still exists for those who want to tinker, but it is not meant as a stable release - that's what Cyanogen OS is for, and it comes preloaded on OnePlus, MicroMax, and Alcatel devices, as well as Qualcomm reference devices. That still makes it quite small, mind you, but we're probably going to be seeing more of it competing with Google's flavour of Android in the coming years.

Having said that, you do make a good point about the overall resources required to maintain Android with the pace of the tech industry. Perhaps a more likely scenario is another large software company picking up the pieces - maybe one of the major Chinese companies, since the OS is quite popular there but Google services are banned.

In any case, this is a pretty out-there scenario - my point was that Android isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and I still stand by that. The code will always be available to carry forwards, even in a small capacity.

[Centralboy545]

The only company in danger is BlackBerry. Sad but true.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Core Prime using Tapatalk