Google minimizes Android to focus its future on Chrome OS

Five years ago, I described how Google was distancing itself from Android and was pursuing more and more a new Chrome OS strategy. Even though this idea was controversial at the time, the latest Google ads show that it's exactly what the company was doing.

In the summer of 2013, AppleInsider has taken a look at Google's all-new Chromecast, a streaming Web device based on Google TV code rather than Android. The article mentioned this as further evidence that Google was working to differentiate itself from the Android platform developed by the company under the direction of Andy Rubin since its acquisition in 2005.

At the time, Android seemed to be at the top of the world. After appearing for the first time as Google's amateur platform in 2008, the new platform suddenly surpassed expectations by serving as an effective substitute for the software platform in the production of new handsets, replacing JavaME , various Linux, Windows Mobile, Symbian and other mobile distributions. platforms that existed before the iPhone.

Chrome key in Android jobs

While Android was starting to take off among desperate phone hardware manufacturers to compete with iPhones, Google has launched a brand new operating system: the Chrome OS operating system of 2009, originally aimed at netbooks. Google expects hardware manufacturers to produce the first mini-laptops with Chrome OS by mid-2010, along with its Android 2.0 phone-centric system, which has just been released late 2009.

Google's dual operating system strategy was no different from that of Apple's Mac and iOS, nor Microsoft Windows and Windows Mobile 6.x desktops of the same period. But it did not work exactly as planned. The netbooks demand of the late 2000s that Google planned to exploit with Chrome OS was eliminated by the iPad in 2010. In addition, hardware manufacturers were not even ready to build Chrome OS netbooks before the middle of 2011.

By the end of 2010, Apple had sold nearly 14 million iPads for around $ 500, which allowed the tablet industry to move more and more. Google decided to react and eventually delayed the advance of Android for phones by concentrating the next major version 3.0 "Honeycomb" on tablets in 2011, while Chrome OS license holders were also ready to market the first netbooks.

Steve Jobs's answer to Android and Chrome OS

Honeycomb tablets and Chrome OS netbooks have escaped. But that was not the only problem for Google's Android and Chrome OS. The two had also fueled controversy with Apple, who saw Google more and more as an aggressor rather than a partner.

In February 2010, Steve Jobs spoke to Apple employees during a public session where he said: "Do not get me wrong, Google wants to kill the iPhone. denigrating them, "do not be mean". "mantra, calling him a" load of shit. "

The animosity continued to increase between Apple and Google. Previously, both partners worked together to bring Google's powerful search and mapping services to the iPhone through Apple's easy-to-use applications and development platform.

But, after Google made fun of Apple at the release of Android 2.0, Apple stopped adding new features to Google Maps in iOS, including its Google Latitude location tracking and services Google Maps + which debuted with Android 2.0 by the end of the year 2009. Jobs had also announced In 2009, Google's president, Eric Schmidt, would leave the board of Apple, including because of the entry of Google into "more business areas of Apple, with Android and now Chrome OS."

Now, Google pays billions of dollars to Apple every quarter to keep search traffic Apple platforms, but at the time, Google executives acted like a loophole with Apple, it was not serious. In 2011, Mr Schmidt had confidently predicted that, within six months, mobile developers would give priority to Android rather than iOS, thus wiping out Apple's advance on development. mobile and on the iOS App Store. That still has not happened seven years later.

Google exhausts its enthusiasm for Android

While making its main partner an enemy, Google's Android has also failed to take the lead in the mobile development of iOS, but it has also failed to penetrate the high-end hardware markets created by Apple around iPhones, the new iPad and its more and more high-end offers for Mac.

Initially, Google was trying to beat the iPad with the larger and more expensive 2011 Honeycomb tablets, alongside top-of-the-line Android phones with giant screens, 4G LTE, NFC, scanners and more. fingerprints and all new features. Google has also begun publishing initiatives to make Android relevant in TV boxes with the short-lived Nexus Q and in video game consoles with Android TV and the Nexus Player, now abandoned.

As these have failed, Google has repositioned Android as a way to power a series of 7-inch low-end tablets, including the self-styled 2012-2013 Google Nexus 7 at a surprisingly low price of just $ 199. After cheap tablets, sophisticated Android phones gave way to basic devices whose collapsed prices paid very little. It was increasingly difficult to believe that Android partners were going to use iOS and that they could advance innovation faster than Apple.

In early 2013, the poor performance of Android under the leadership of Andy Rubin led Rubin to be sidelined from "new projects". The Android division has been entrusted to Sundar Pichai, development manager for Chrome OS. In 2014, Rubin had completely left Google.

Sundar Pichai and the rising tide against Android

Under Pichai, Google launched Chromecast in 2013 to challenge Apple's famous AirPlay for wireless transmission of audio and video from iOS devices to Apple TV. Yet, Chromecast was not based on Android. Instead, he used software developed for Chrome OS.

Pichai also turned the script on Google's "cheap hardware", ending its low-end tablets and launching the Chromebook Pixel, an expensive Chrome OS netbook priced at 1300-1450 dollars, targeting the popular MacBook Air Apple rather than its cheaper iPads.

Previous Chrome OS netbooks from partners, including Samsung, had cost around $ 550. Pichai introduced the Pixel stating that "the goal was to push the boundaries and build something premium."

Pichai also clearly viewed Chrome OS as the future of Google's hardware licenses.

"We are advancing the computer," Pichai said at the time. "This will certainly encourage the ecosystem to rethink the touch, I think people will take the first step towards building tablets with that."

That has not happened Chrome OS has remained unpopular and Pixel sales have never taken off.

The following year, Google introduced another Android tablet, the Nexus 9, whose code name was ironically "folds". It was designed to look like the iPad mini, then very popular at Apple, which had resulted in iPad sales in the stratosphere. The price, which was between $ 400 and $ 480, was well above that of previous Android tablets from Google and its partners.

But, its price comparable to that of Apple does not translate into sales comparable to those of Apple.

Nexus 9 has failed to challenge Apple's iPad nor even to create a small commercial success. Android tablets in general have begun to sink and the tablet market has since contracted.

Google's hope that smartphone apps can simply switch to a larger screen does not translate into a desirable tablet platform. In contrast, Apple has been working on creating iPad-optimized apps and introduced it during the introduction of its iPads, creating a sustainable platform and a demand for iPads capable of Run sophisticated iOS applications optimized for tablets.

Despite Google's hopes for Chrome OS, individuals and businesses did not buy it. So Google started depositing low-end ChromeBooks in American schools from kindergarten to grade 12, many of whom were happy to get help deploying computers of all kinds at a low price. Four years later, that did not increase the number of Chromebooks for individuals or the company.

While Chromebook Pixel was stagnating as a fictitious product with marginal sales, Google began developing a new, more affordable Chrome OS tablet, operating as a "detachable" system similar to Microsoft Surface. However, shortly before its release, Google had decided that Chrome OS would not work and launched the device late 2015 under the name of Pixel C Android, from 500 USD. This has created another expensive and expensive Android tablet, again linked to a platform that can only run stretched smartphone apps.

Last year, Google stopped using its tablets Chromebook% 20Pixel% 20and% 20the% 20dern% 20de% 20its% 20Android. Last week, Google introduced three new devices: Pixel 3 phones, a Home Hub smart display and a new Chrome OS Slate tablet. It should be noted that Google is testing Chrome OS again instead of Android on its latest tablet, but the company has also raised eyebrows by abandoning Android from its tablet fixed "hub" product.

Rather than using Android or its officially approved Android Things platform, created specifically to power smart screens and speakers, Google's new Home Hub looks more like Chromecast, again using a software derived from Chrome OS team from Pichai rather than Rubin's Android.

Of the four categories of devices currently sold by Google, only one is still based on Android (Pixel phones), while its products for tablets, TVs and screens have all evolved. If Chrome OS could handle a phone well, Google would probably have also changed, but the reality is that it took Google five years to wean themselves from Android into tablets. Three years after launching "Android Things", he also got rid of it.

Rumor has it that Google builds a new platform "Fuchsia" to replace Android on phones and everywhere else, it is still used. But the question remains: why is Google abandoning Android as quickly as possible?

Intellectual property issues continue to hit Android

It seems that the evolution of Google relies on a combination of Android design as interpreted Java implementation rather than a native code, the persistent problem of property lawsuits Intellectual Oracle involving the appropriation of Sun Java code by Android and the natural affection of Pichai for his own work on Chrome OS. that Rubin's Android.

Android fans can insist that the platform is not inherently flawed, but the reality is that Android phones need a lot more RAM to work as well as iOS devices, and still can not follow. Android has not evolved to mobile devices, tablets or other devices.

Android advocates may insist that Oracle has no legal rights to Android, or that its intellectual property lawsuit has no merit, but the fact is that the case has not been abandoned and that it is steadily getting stronger, threatening to bring billions of damages and interests. Google – and / or the threat of introducing a new regulation or scrutiny of how Google can use Android, a much more devastating prospect than just paying a fine.

Since we published for the first time the idea that Google was distancing itself from Android, the opponents insisted that this idea was absurd. But here we are a few years later and Google uses non-Android software wherever it can: Chromecast, tablets and screens, despite the Android code that it could use instead – and years after Android Things came out as expected solution, he was expected in third position. parts to use.

Google even stands out from its "dominant" Android on phones

Android is still considered by its fans as a "dominant" platform delivered on most phones in the world, just like Symbian ten years ago. But among the companies that make money with Android, the brand does not seem very important. It's almost almost treated as a liability.

In 2013, Android's biggest licensee, Samsung, was already avoiding any direct mention of Android in its marketing of the Galaxy S4, focusing instead on Samsung's own user interface and security layers, which could actually be ported to alternative operating systems. At the time, Samsung was selling Bada and working on Tizen, both of whom were aspiring to replace Android.

This year, even Google itself seemed to be doing the impossible to avoid pronouncing even the word "Android". Write for 9to5GoogleStephen Hall pointed out that Android was not featured once in the 2018 Made by Google speech. This is the first time Google has been hosting a public material event like this since the first time. introduction of the operating system. in 2008 – at least mention it by name. "

He also noted that Google had stripped "Android" of much of its branding. Android Pay and Android Messages are now Google Pay and simply Messages.

New Android applications and initiatives are also awarded a Google brand: Google One, Google Allo, Google Tasks. For his latest Pixel 3 products, Hall added that there was "no mention of Android on the retail box. Not even a mention on the start screen.

If Android is such a big brand and is "popular" among buyers around the world, why do licensees and even Google themselves avoid mentioning it?

The answers seem to correspond to what we predicted five years ago. Android focuses on the problem of stolen IP and its fundamental foundation as a platform is not only flawed, but it does not match Google's core competencies and central to its management activities.

Google has always been a Web services company, building web clients with Web tools. It was not until the acquisition in 2005 of Rubin's Android project that he engaged in the maintenance of a non-Web platform. Android just did not work well. Google has invested heavily in the platform but, over the years, it has not been able to attract the type of high-end users that iOS has.

Apple has free rein in a world dominated by Android

The main task of Android is to fill the gaps that have prevented other potential competitors from taking root. When Microsoft attempted to launch Windows Phone in 2010 in order to leverage its PC partners to support Apple's iPhone, the free availability of Android has prevented it from working.

Similarly, when Samsung tried to get Bada off the ground in 2010, then Tizen in 2012, the Android lock on smartphone apps and Android's mind-sharing function was hindered. Note that Samsung has transferred its own smartwatches and smart TVs to Tizen, which clearly indicates that it wants to use Android as much as Google.

Blackberry has invested heavily in the development of Blackberry OS X, hoping that the new platform can power tablets, phones and other mobile devices. In a world increasingly dominated by Android, he did not have the chance to take off. He abandoned and adopted Android and has since fallen into oblivion.

Sailfish, the Nokia MeeGo / Maemo / Moblin, Ubuntu Touch and other open source mobile platforms have also been unable to sprout and grow under the suffocating cover of Android.

Companies that have used Android without Google, including the "Fire" fork of Amazon and various distributions used in China, greatly increase the heritage footprint of Android without adding really much value. If this is the case, this use of Android only contributes to the difficulty of replacing Android with something better, coming from Google or an emerging competitor. The fact that everyone in consumer electronics is largely aligned with Android – handcuffed by its problems and unable to innovate quickly and dramatically – has been great for Apple

On the other hand, the fact that everyone in consumer electronics is largely aligned with Android – handcuffed by their problems and unable to innovate quickly and dramatically – has been great for Apple. This means that, rather than competing with Microsoft or with a radical innovator, it is enough to move ahead of a mobile platform that has never been directly profitable for its developers and is hampered by its legacy and fragmentation.

This allowed Apple to focus on optimizing iOS to run on several generations of iPhones, to specialize it for the replacement of tablets and high-end desktop computers under the form of iPad Pro and develop at leisure new categories of platforms in Apple TV and Apple Watch.

If Google, Samsung, Microsoft or any other company were able to create a new platform to replace Android, they would not only be facing the difficult prospect of breaking the suffocating atmosphere of the fragmented and installed database. 39; Android. They would also find themselves competing with an established mobile and portable platform generating tens of billions of dollars every quarter, a platform that locks advanced and efficient silicon design and has a platform of extremely sophisticated development generating virtually all the benefits. among the third-party developers.