Google document mentions "lead device" strategy, names Motorola and Verizon as example partners
1. dandirk (Posts: 187; Member since: 04 Aug 2011)
This has nothing to do with purchase of Moto imo.
This is essentially just the "with google" labeling program. Maybe this is intented to go farther then the "with google" label.
I don't think google would be stupid enough to try an "Apple" like hardware+software approach, well at least one that would gain a distinct advantage to market but Moto.
The 3rd party software support is by far the biggest reason Android as taken so much market share.
6. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2571; Member since: 26 May 2011)
This isn't quite the "with Google" label, because that can be applied to any phone that has passed the quality control to allow the Google Apps. This is more to do with devices that gain an amount of market exclusivity like the Nexus phones, XOOM, G1 and OG DROID.
7. protozeloz (Posts: 5187; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
I think is a good solution, Google gets a established and constant hardware line from various manufacturers in exchange they get the next version of the flavor to play with and release updates and more powerful phones faster
9. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
i agree. Exclusive time windows are fine with me if its garunteeing unaltered pure google experience. Does that also mean that its going to be like a nexus device and recieve updates directly from Google and bypass the carrier? That will seal the deal for me. More phones than just Nexus that do that would be awesome.
Then we could have a real inner-android food fight over pure google phones and updates vs carrier updates :)
14. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2571; Member since: 26 May 2011)
I'm still not sold that there's a very big market for pure Google. We nerds certainly want it, but we make up a very small proportion of the market. Motoblur may suck, and TouchWiz is nothing special, but Sense has some really nice features. And, again, most people aside from us don't really know or care if they've got the most updated version of Android. They update when it's there, and if not, they don't think about it.
19. ilia1986 (unregistered)
I agree. It's not the "with-Google" brand that matters. It's the whole experience. Pure google devices would still have a market niche, for rom developers for example and such - but with TouchWiz and Sense around - most people are going to want these types of phones due to the UI.
27. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
in my own limited personal experience, we keep the LG G2X next to the Sensation... of course the LG is pure google while the sensation is sence 3.0. I have to explain the differences between PureG and sense and watch the customers choose between them. Most of the time I'll make them spend a few minutes with each to get a feel for each. While a lot of them do go for the flashier Sense its not really "that much" more than go for stock. If I had to guess, I'd say 60/40. Again, thats just from my own experience though.
Point is, there might be more of a pureG market out there than we.. or the manufacturers give credit for. Thats why I'm dying to see a fight between the same spec'd phone.. say the SGS2 or the Sensation, one with manufacturer overlays and one with PureG, on the same network, and see which people buy.
41. ilia1986 (unregistered)
Thing is, remixfa correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know it's much easier to get a sense device, and then either disable or completely remove Sense, than get a PureG device and install Sense or even Sense-like features.
42. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
lol, i dont think either are all that easy to do one then the otehr unless its one of the few devices that HTC has given its unlock tool for :)
44. ilia1986 (unregistered)
Well there are roms with Sense.. and afaik rooting HTC phones shouldn't be a problem as they are very popular. Then again - I've also seen people showing in YouTube how to disable Sense as well.
Damn.. I can't wait to sell my stupid iPhone 4 and get into this whole Android-root-rom-theme-widget-custom luncher thingy! :D
48. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
oh, HTC loves to bootlock their phones, just like Motorola. They are notorious for it and they get better with every generation. I havent looked myself, but ive heard that the Sensation has been unbreakable so far. LG and samsung leave the doors wide open though.
52. ilia1986 (unregistered)
Ugh.. well if that's true - that's too bad. I did hear that they're releasing an unlock for the Evo3D or something.. and later on for the sensation as well.
56. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2571; Member since: 26 May 2011)
It would certainly help to get a sense of consumer interest in stock if Verizon had a few devices. Maybe we'll get a glimpse with the DROID Prime.
2. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Ah, Michael, always with the level head. Why can't you panic and scream doomsday like any other sensible hater? ;)
I think that your conclusions are valid here. Motorola has already been involved with Google in much the same capacity as Google implies here anyway, with the original Droid and the XOOM. Really nothing new. And the other manufacturers have still been more than happy to keep releasing Android phones like clockwork. I think that Google is also mentioning this "lead time" as an incentive to persuade manufacturers not to put out bulls**t phones with Android slapped on almost as an afterthought, almost as a form of quality control.
15. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2571; Member since: 26 May 2011)
I'm sorry. My rationality does get the better of me. Maybe one of these days I'll get it in me to write some sky-is-falling link bait, but I doubt it. I'd feel too dirty afterwards.
16. snowgator (Posts: 3015; Member since: 19 Jan 2011)
Ever consider it for an April 1 story? I'd be all in on helping. We can put the over/under on those that jump on the end of life as we know it posts at about 45 .....
28. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
well, garunteed 1 jumper if you post that samsung is dumping bada, garunteed 10+ jumpers if you post that samsung wins all worldwide suites or HTC gets a temp injunction on iphone sales.. lol
40. ilia1986 (unregistered)
Just post that Apple has been bought by Uwe Boll and he is now going to design the next iPhone. Watch suicide rate among iSheep rise. :D
43. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
omg.. Uwe boll.. the bane of gamers and movie watchers everywhere..
i think i just puked in my mouth.. lol
hey, at least u know if he did a "serious" apple movie, it would be a comedy with horrible effects, acting, and a plot that would make "Postal" look well thought out.. lol
46. ilia1986 (unregistered)
lol yeah - it would be about how Apple patented the earth. And then populated it with people. And then turned 75% of them to iSheep to garner profit.
The opening cut-scene would describe a giant Apple hitting the universe - imploding and exploding simultaneously, while raining forth a brrage of iPods, iPhones and iPads, like one giant white cocaine filled breath from the mouth of TC.
49. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
call it "The Big "Apple" theory... the story of how the universe was created in Steve Jobs' image"
57. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2571; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Oh god, don't even joke about something like that. The idea of Uwe Boll taking over Apple is the most nightmarish scenario I've heard in a while, and no one could ever claim that I'm an iSheep. The industry needs Apple to be Apple. No one needs Uwe Boll for anything, ever.
17. snowgator (Posts: 3015; Member since: 19 Jan 2011)
Sniggs!! Good to hear from ya. Was expecting to see ya all over the Bionic posts.
20. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
I guess I didn't feel like I had too much to add, especially since I don't have the money (or really the use) for the Bionic at this point, lol. It's awesome that it's finally being released, and it looks amazing, but I'm already stretching it with the Atrix budgetwise.
Thanks for the warm welcome back though. :)
3. bossmt_2 (Posts: 401; Member since: 13 Oct 2009)
Google is gonna say this cause their first tablet launched with Moto, and their first huge cellphone seller (and also the first 2.0 Android device) was the original droid.
I don't think what they're saying is out of line, do you expect Android to only make Motorola devices on Verizon? Verizon embraced Android by creating the Droid labeling (well purchasing the rights from LucasFilms) and marketed the devices with companies like Motorola aggressively. It was some time ago but do you remember the iDon't commercials that peppered the MLB Postseason and NFL?
4. protozeloz (Posts: 5187; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
Also just noticed this is quite similar to my idea! They are listening :D
10. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
I am watching the clock.. waiting for peter to run in here screaming about the end of android and the rise of bada because motorola was mentioned in the article. :)
18. snowgator (Posts: 3015; Member since: 19 Jan 2011)
I am exhausted from typing the replies to our Bada cheerleader. I thought about posting one just so no one would miss him. :-)
22. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
I'm not saying the end of Android.
I believe Google might have 20 % of the market share at the most when they start doing their own phones. Of course, 20 % market share when doing your own phones gives you much your profit than 60 % market share and giving Android away for free.
29. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
I can agree with the last part of the statement about which makes more money..
but Google isnt going to do that, so its not something I lose sleep over. :)
11. skymitch89 (Posts: 925; Member since: 05 Nov 2010)
The Droid Prime might just be a Motorola device instead a Samsung device. Still wonder why Verizon hasn't gotten an official GS2 yet, but I bet it's safe to say that it's because of LTE reasons.
12. DroogV59 (Posts: 37; Member since: 02 Jun 2011)
"One of our favorite sources for digging through legal documents and patents, Florian Mueller...." who has been a staunch and blatant shill for Fruitco. Is that why he is a favourite source at iPA?
13. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Hey, don't be hatin'. You can tell from the article itself, if you bothered to read the whole thing, that Michael H. is very fair in his writing. Keep it real, son.
58. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2571; Member since: 26 May 2011)
Regardless of his blatant bias, Florian digs up amazing information, and is invaluable in making sense of all the patent shenanigans going on in the industry. If you learn to read around his unfounded suppositions, there is a lot of good information coming from him.
21. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
Yeah, now it is 110 % confirmed that Google will be favouring Motorola and making their own hardware.
remixfa, you can't really deny it now !
23. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
No it isn't, Peter. Didn't you even read the article?
Oh wait, I'm sorry, reading articles isn't really your forte, is it?
24. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
i did read the article...
"lead device" strategy wherein Google would give early access to software to certain companies that conform to its standards. This in itself isn't that bad, the trouble is that Google mentions Motorola by name. "
By the way, haven't seen you post here for a while, have you been busy thinking about the growth rate ?
25. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
I've been busy doing things a bit more important than rehashing the iPhone/Android fan war.
You missed the rest of the article, where it points out that Motorola has already received the same treatment with lead devices on 2.0 and 3.0 versions of Android before anyone else got their hands on them; basically, their future stance is unchanged from their previous stance.
I still am very sorry that our email conversation came to the screeching halt that it did. I think if maybe you had a non work computer/internet access and could see the information provided in the links I posted you would have realized the weight of the arguments I brought to bear against you.
Though it was disappointing that you and your boss insisted on an end to the conversation after I copy/pasted one of the articles to demonstrate what I meant by quote mining.
26. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
I was the one who ended the conversation, then the boss sent an email to you as well without me knowing. I agree with the boss though.
But there is no denying, the growth rate population is a huge problem for the evolutionist theory no matter how you try and twist it.
I enjoy having nice conversations about this topic, but i don't see a point in having one when one fails to see that 2 + 2 = 4, there really is no point in arguing with someone like that. It's like an iSheep...
You tell them that the iphone is not the best, there is a GS2 with dual core 1.2 ghz processor compared to the iphones 1 ghz single core processor. The isheep will still say the iphone is more powerfull...
30. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
is this an evolution vs creationism arguement!?
31. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
yeah, sniggly and i had one on email...
Do you want to have a discussion about that remixfa, you can give me your email ? : )
33. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
No, the growth rate is not a problem, because we actually have a rough idea of what the growth rate actually is, though it's been anything but constant. Which is why Heffner's formula fails. He simply used the wrong formula and threw in wrong figures (even by creationist standards) to obtain the result he wanted to show.
Scientists change their conclusions to match the facts. Creationist advocates try to change the evidence to match their conclusions.
It was a pleasant argument. Telling you the many reasons why your argument sucks from every angle, especially mathematical angles, is not disagreeing that 2+2=4. Continuing to use a demonstrably wrong formula and even more demonstrably wrong figures, as well as completely ignoring available data on the matter which flies directly in the face of said figures, IS arguing that 2+2 does not equal 4.
You were the one who couldn't wrap your head around a mathematical reality simply because it disagreed with your foregone conclusions. I'm sorry that you can't see that. I've never understood people like you.
37. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
I have shown you sooooooo many times why your argument simply is wrong, and that the growth rate is a huge problem for the evolution. I won't discuss that any more as said that you fail to recognize 2 + 2 = 4, and anyway PhoneArena is not the place to discuss this.
The big problem with evolutionists are that they twist their so called evidence to match their theory. Creationists know what the bible says, and all the evidence that is available shows that the bible is right, no denying it !
But as said PhoneArena is the wrong place to discuss this, and i won't discuss this anymore here on PhoneArena.
Remixfa, if you want to discuss this, please give me your email : )
51. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
No, you didn't show me anything. You simply chose to ignore everything I wrote which refuted your arguments and counter arguments (all pretty much quoted-then repeated- verbatim from creationist talking heads) and then skipped right to accusing me of denying mathematical reality, when in fact I used mathematical reality to bitchslap your arguments down to nothing.
You also conveniently were "unable" to view any of the links I posted on the subjects we discussed, and when I copied and pasted an entire article which proved me right on mitochondrial Eve, you suddenly insisted that the conversation end NAO.
Also, you can't turn what I just said around if you offer absolutely zero proof for such a claim and then refute your own claim by admitting that you have foregone conclusions.
I mean, honestly, how do you live with yourself?
32. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
Sniggly, just forgot to say that it was not my boss. It was the Admin in the company i work for that sent you the email. And i agree with the admin.
34. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Peter, if your admin clearly didn't want you abusing your work email to discuss these matters, why are you readily inviting others to the same debate?
Remixfa, if you agree to this debate, you'll have to keep me updated. My email is on my profile. :)
35. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
The admin had no problem with discussions, it was not even he who ended the conversation, that was me !
The only thing he had a problem with was, the inaccuracy in your arguments, therefore he sent you an email.
36. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
no.. no.. no thanks. I have a religious friend that I regularly get into these arguements with. The arguement is futile. No matter how strong the scientific evidence you are arguing against someone's deeply held personal beliefs.
There is no amount of evidence short of thier God stepping down from the heavens and slapping them silly for such nonsense that will change their minds. Sometimes, I dont think even that will change their minds.. lol.
You have a better chance of peter buying all apple products, taco admitting android is far superior, or miz not having homo-erotic wrestler obsessions... all while winning the lottery 4x in a row than convincing someone that deeply believes in creationism that its a farce.
On a side note, im really suprised. I didnt think creationism exsisted outside of the US "bible belt", outside of the US at all, and definately not in a heavily socialst country like sweeden. Are you Roman Catholic? Now im curious.
38. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
I take this as that you believe evolution ?
In fact remixfa, all of the scientific evidence does not point to evolution, it does point to creation (i can show you all this if you give me your email adress). That is why it is hard to make a creationist believe evolution.
When it comes to socialist Sweden, you are right. Sweden is waaaay to socialistic, and most people here believe evolution.
I'm not a Roman catholic.
I'm just a normal guy believing in God, and having a personal relationship with him.
39. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
lol.. scientific evidence points to the earth being created in 6 days??? uuuuuhh. nope.
There was a cool article the other day about the oldest fossilized evidence ever found. It was only microbial life but it exsisted before oxygen on earth.. they think it was able to synthesis its crebs cycle on sulfur.... a few hundred million years ago.
When I'm not at work, ill try to find the link for ya.
Peter, im a science geek. If you ever take some high end science courses (and no high school/college biology is not among them) you will begin to understand evolution. Evolution doesnt happen on a macro scale unless there is a huge environmental change, like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.. it happens on a micro genetic scale, one genetic anomole at a time.
I also dont believe in any religious fairytales from God to reincarnation to the spaghetti monster, so a religious view of the world like creationism would never fly with me. So we are at a permanent impass.
And NO I will not have a side conversation about it.. lol. :) Im drowning in school work as it is.. this is my source of side entertainment between reading chapters, technique practice, and work. (ive had to read nearly 30 chapters of dry science crap in the last 10 days.. shoot me) Sad but true.. lol
47. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
Well, i'm not going to discuss evolution vs creation here on phonearena, i don't want to get banned by a moderator.
And i'm a science geek too, i have loads of knowledge in this area (my three favorite things are mobile phones, photography and science) ; )
And believe me, when you know all the things i do about science, evolution becomes a comical fairytail...
It would be nice to have a conversation about this, but it's ok if you have too much schoolwork.
50. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
You can't possibly love science if your scientific knowledge comes from ignorant creationist spokespeople. You practically quote them all verbatim! You also don't bother to do your own research into the claims they make. How is that a scientific attitude at all?
53. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
That's just an ignorant argument.
Of course i'm not out on the field yet, doing archeological reasearch, neither are you (i assume).
Allmost everything you wrote to me in our conversation was from ignorant evolutionist scientists, so your argument does not stand up at all !
54. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Actually, everything I wrote to you in the conversation we had was sourced from multiple scientists who had all spent years studying in the FIELDS RELEVANT TO THE POINTS I WAS MAKING. The closest you had was the cosmologist, and even he has been repeatedly beaten down by pretty much everyone else in the field, because he, like everyone else you quoted, PUT HIS RELIGION BEFORE HIS RESEARCH. REAL scientists do things in the opposite direction: they put the results of their research ahead of their conclusions, and the few who don't are quickly exposed and cast out of the scientific community.
I reject your sources because they're usually grossly misinformed, presenting data dishonestly, or outright lying to their audiences.
You reject my sources simply because they disagree with the Bible.
That's pretty much how it's worked between us so far.
And that's all I have to say on the matter.
55. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
a scientist has a question, postulates an experiment to answer that question, runs the experiment, finds out if the data from the experiment fits the question or not... readjusts the question and starts over again. And then when an answer is found, its peer reviewed and the experiment is redone over n over again to make for a sound "law". If it cant be, then its a "theory".
A creationist "scientist" has an "answer" from an old book called the bible, and tries to find ways to push that answer into any cracks that may or may not be in scientific theory. They are trying to fill round holes with square pegs and call it "fact".
A scientist will never tell you he knows 100% as nothing is ever 100%, a creationist "scientist" will tell you that he knows everything because its 100%.
Creationist believers want to be told facts are black and white and there are answers for anything. Anything that is unanswered falls back to "God".
Scientists know that we dont have all the answers and do not default to a standby like "god". They give you the best theory at the time and keep testing it until its proven, readjusted, or thrown out.
61. PeterIfromsweden (Posts: 1230; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
This answer is to both remixfa and sniggly.
Sniggly, you have not read anything about the guys i quoted...
All of the guys i quoted had worked for a loooong time in the different fields. Dr. John Morris if you remember him, is a geologist since a long time back. The growth rate formula, the guy was a career mathematician for over 38 years. Another guy i quoted was Dr. Carl Baugh, he is the discoverer of two major dinosaurs: Acrocanthosaurus and stegosaurus stenops. He even has his own museum. Saying the things you said in your last post was ridicoulus.
And remixfa, you are making assumptions like every evolutionists do, that creationists are twisting facts to match scripture. That simply is not true, however that can't be said about evolutionists...
"keep testing it until its proven, readjusted, or thrown out." If this is true, then almost everything that the evolutionary theory is built upon should be thrown out. The fossil record clearly shows something is wrong with evolution, but somehow evolutionists claim it is evidence for their theory... : P
With this said, i won't write more about this here on PhoneArena since it is of topic.
45. myclevername (Posts: 93; Member since: 07 Jun 2010)
Maybe we're all reading it wrong and it just means Google wants Motorola to start using lead in it's phones?
59. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2571; Member since: 26 May 2011)
There is a small chance that's the case, but it just doesn't jive with Google's history and overall plans for Android. Google has a lot of hardware partners to keep happy, and using Motorola exclusively for lead devices will end up killing the Android market as a whole, because all of the other manufacturers will go somewhere else. Google has never been about tying its software to one set of hardware. In every instance, the plan with Google is to make things that work everywhere (hence the push of HTML5, and the free model of Android.)
60. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
what he said / \