Pretty quiet time for tech
Haven't posted much lately, but then, there hasn't really been much to talk of since Windows 10. So I guess I can recap, vent, whatever....
Firstly, more amusing stuff from the Oracle v. Android case. I've talked about this case over and over again years ago. So I'll try not to waste too much effort on it here as well. Just thought it was amusing. I think I would be fired over such an email. There may be more damning emails that came out of this... but additional emails of this nature offer nothing except to show that knowledge of this wider spread and this was just crass offered no technical explanation and really just serves as legal bait and provocation.
Android M is on the way... and I can't help but ask, why? L hasn't been out all that long and with device fragmentation on Android and the total failure from OEMs and carriers to update phones this kind of regular release just puts the OS in a holding pattern where people point out ad nausea just how bad the device fragmentation is.
There is a simple answer to the device fragmentation problem. Release OS updates less frequently!
This would have been less of a valid argument 5 years ago. But the pace of innovation in mobile OSs has really slowed down. So there is increasingly less value.
What they need is an extensibility model within the OS that allows most of the important systems to be updated via the Play Store. This would make it easier to deliver ongoing updates to prolong life of the OS and fix some of the issues with OEMs and carriers. And this has been done for some key apps, but not so much the rest of the system.
For Android, where there is neither license fees nor hardware sales for Google gained by selling newer models there is also less incentive in getting users to upgrade phones on a regular cadence.
This is at contrast with Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft had a hand in license fees and still has the #1 handset on the platform. They profit from each device sold. Similarly, Apple is the only maker of iOS devices and they get a decent chunk of their money by enticing you to buy a new phone. For those two, it makes sense to release updates often, even if those updates don't offer any tangible value.
Google's business model and position in the market uniquely positions them to throttle down releases and wait until they can show off something that truly offers value. This delay would allow time for the fragmentation situation to decrease and make their incremental OS releases seem more impressive than their competitions.
The other thing that makes little waves is the end of carrier subsidies. Many carriers want to drop them. IF that ever truly happens, Apple will be dead in the water. Android will suffer if they don't address quality of low end devices, but they would have more than enough time to do so before it truly affected them. Microsoft would likely see some benefit from such a move.
I don't talk much on this topic though, because it isn't really going to happen any time soon. The closest I see happening is that standard contracts will no longer offer a break on phone prices, but you'll be able to tack on additional "Phone Upgrade Plan" charge or some such to get you a device credit on an annual or bi-annual basis. This would allow the carriers to advertise lower prices even though most people would end up paying the same or more because they would just add on the extra price to get the subsidized prices.
At the end of the day... people only sign up on contracts for the phones. And phones are generally too expensive for the average person. The first company to truly eliminate all forms of device subsidies will die a quick and horrific death. Even the value phone providers offer subsidies of sorts. They just rein the costs in a bit by offering a static compensation amount ($10 per bill paid, or $200 per contract, etc...). The thing that bleeds carriers profits right now are the high end phones. Subsidies cut as much as $400-600 off the price of the phone.
I think the smart solution would be a flex plan of some sort. You start with a standard contract that includes no device subsidy and then you can agree to increase the contract by any amount and have the total that would represent over the life of the contract deducted from what you pay for the phone up front. If you cancel or leave early you simply buy out or continue paying the difference for the phone only. It would basically mean financing any percentage of the phone that you'd like.
There is another reason I don't see subsidies going away though. And that is device exclusives. If you need to buy your phone outright there will be even more demand for phones to come unlocked. There will also be more people simply buying factory unlocked phones elsewhere because there is no longer any price incentive to get the phone from the carrier. And this takes away one of the big reasons people choose to go with a particular carrier. It also leaves virtually no reason to sign up on a contract, making it even easier to leave a carrier. Then they would actually have to compete solely on legitimate grounds and none of them want that either.
Firstly, more amusing stuff from the Oracle v. Android case. I've talked about this case over and over again years ago. So I'll try not to waste too much effort on it here as well. Just thought it was amusing. I think I would be fired over such an email. There may be more damning emails that came out of this... but additional emails of this nature offer nothing except to show that knowledge of this wider spread and this was just crass offered no technical explanation and really just serves as legal bait and provocation.
Android M is on the way... and I can't help but ask, why? L hasn't been out all that long and with device fragmentation on Android and the total failure from OEMs and carriers to update phones this kind of regular release just puts the OS in a holding pattern where people point out ad nausea just how bad the device fragmentation is.
There is a simple answer to the device fragmentation problem. Release OS updates less frequently!
This would have been less of a valid argument 5 years ago. But the pace of innovation in mobile OSs has really slowed down. So there is increasingly less value.
What they need is an extensibility model within the OS that allows most of the important systems to be updated via the Play Store. This would make it easier to deliver ongoing updates to prolong life of the OS and fix some of the issues with OEMs and carriers. And this has been done for some key apps, but not so much the rest of the system.
For Android, where there is neither license fees nor hardware sales for Google gained by selling newer models there is also less incentive in getting users to upgrade phones on a regular cadence.
This is at contrast with Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft had a hand in license fees and still has the #1 handset on the platform. They profit from each device sold. Similarly, Apple is the only maker of iOS devices and they get a decent chunk of their money by enticing you to buy a new phone. For those two, it makes sense to release updates often, even if those updates don't offer any tangible value.
Google's business model and position in the market uniquely positions them to throttle down releases and wait until they can show off something that truly offers value. This delay would allow time for the fragmentation situation to decrease and make their incremental OS releases seem more impressive than their competitions.
The other thing that makes little waves is the end of carrier subsidies. Many carriers want to drop them. IF that ever truly happens, Apple will be dead in the water. Android will suffer if they don't address quality of low end devices, but they would have more than enough time to do so before it truly affected them. Microsoft would likely see some benefit from such a move.
I don't talk much on this topic though, because it isn't really going to happen any time soon. The closest I see happening is that standard contracts will no longer offer a break on phone prices, but you'll be able to tack on additional "Phone Upgrade Plan" charge or some such to get you a device credit on an annual or bi-annual basis. This would allow the carriers to advertise lower prices even though most people would end up paying the same or more because they would just add on the extra price to get the subsidized prices.
At the end of the day... people only sign up on contracts for the phones. And phones are generally too expensive for the average person. The first company to truly eliminate all forms of device subsidies will die a quick and horrific death. Even the value phone providers offer subsidies of sorts. They just rein the costs in a bit by offering a static compensation amount ($10 per bill paid, or $200 per contract, etc...). The thing that bleeds carriers profits right now are the high end phones. Subsidies cut as much as $400-600 off the price of the phone.
I think the smart solution would be a flex plan of some sort. You start with a standard contract that includes no device subsidy and then you can agree to increase the contract by any amount and have the total that would represent over the life of the contract deducted from what you pay for the phone up front. If you cancel or leave early you simply buy out or continue paying the difference for the phone only. It would basically mean financing any percentage of the phone that you'd like.
There is another reason I don't see subsidies going away though. And that is device exclusives. If you need to buy your phone outright there will be even more demand for phones to come unlocked. There will also be more people simply buying factory unlocked phones elsewhere because there is no longer any price incentive to get the phone from the carrier. And this takes away one of the big reasons people choose to go with a particular carrier. It also leaves virtually no reason to sign up on a contract, making it even easier to leave a carrier. Then they would actually have to compete solely on legitimate grounds and none of them want that either.
Comments
Post a Comment