Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 29th Dec 2011 16:22 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It all started with Apple/TechCrunch blogger M.G. Siegler making a huge fuss over something he didn't understand, and while that in and of itself isn't particularly interesting, one of the outcomes of this little internet drama is a comment on Google+ (the tenth one) that so perfectly encapsulates just how important Android is for the world that I felt the need to share it with you. It's the holiday season after all.
Thread beginning with comment 501586
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Revolutionary?
by _xmv on Thu 29th Dec 2011 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Revolutionary?"
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

The point is that "Android is so cool it's what history books will remember, as being the open source OS that changed things"

Well, as pointed out, it's not actually open. Plus, if anything, it's Linux which made the difference.

Finally, it's just marketing bs obviously. Just like iOS fans would claim iOS changed the face of the mobile (and thus the mobile web) and will make it into history books.

Heck. Freaking fanboi world.

What makes it into history books is the winner, no matter how, no matter why. The winner is the biggest seller. And that's Android.

That's still not revolutionary.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Revolutionary?
by earksiinni on Thu 29th Dec 2011 17:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Revolutionary?"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

The point is that "Android is so cool it's what history books will remember, as being the open source OS that changed things"


Nope.

What makes it into history books is the winner, no matter how, no matter why. The winner is the biggest seller. And that's Android.


Closer, but still not quite there.

Edited 2011-12-29 17:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Revolutionary?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 30th Dec 2011 00:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Revolutionary?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I think the whole point was that Android will make the most impact in everyday people's lives, because it will be available to them at a low cost and high quality.

Just like windows put PC's at everyone's desktop, Android will put pocket-able computer phones in everyone's pocket.

The effect of everyone having a computer in their pocket will be revolutionary. Not necissiarily the UI, the design, the code, the "openness", the patents, the what-ever geeks argue about these days. The effect on people having such technology in their hands.

That is what Thom is referring to. But, instead you responded with a bunch of technical and geeky oriented retorts, completely unrelated to article.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Revolutionary?
by mrstep on Sat 31st Dec 2011 14:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Revolutionary?"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

I think his point was that Android isn't "open", which the article starts out commenting on.

Then there's the comment about sales numbers, first pointing out how Google is excluding non-certified devices (which Apple doesn't have an issue of to begin with), and then: "(Apple's numbers, on the other hand, only cover shipped devices - not sold devices, like many erroneously believe. Apple uses "sold" rather... Disingenuously by redefining "shipped" to "sold" in its SEC filings)"

That's fine, but thanks to the optimized manufacturing and delivery pipeline, for Apple - unlike the other vendors - that's generally a pretty close reflection of what has been sold. So "Disingenuous" is just trying to come up with a bad spin on something for editorial reasons.

Rubin's tweet getting pulled is actually revisionist - I'm fairly certain that putting out updated instructions doesn't require removing old tweets. It was a significant post in the tech community and could have stayed put.

The point that Android can have a larger impact on people because it will be more affordable (in the sense of being able to buy worse hardware for less money) is valid - Windows had a larger impact on those users (directly) than the Mac ever did. However, making that claim totally ignores that Apple demonstrated how to actually make these usable devices (or, in the old Windows case, how to make a non-CLI interface for end users), which Google then copied... So essentially, it's still the Apple concept of how a touch screen device should work that is revolutionizing those people's phones, whether you want to admit it or not.

Maybe Google can be portrayed as Robin Hood - stealing from the rich, giving to the poor - but certainly not as an innovator. And Google's motives - delivering more ads - certainly doesn't seem like truly wanting to give to the poor, more likely just to take their eyeballs.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Revolutionary?
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 30th Dec 2011 02:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Revolutionary?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

The history books are full of losers who's ideas won in the end.

Reply Parent Score: 2