To be sure, Google repeatedly has said it is not in the phone-making business. “We're not making hardware,” Andy Rubin, who heads up Google Android development. “We're enabling other people to build hardware.”
Of course, some might parse the words and say that Google doesn't have to build its own phone: it simply has to commission a company that does build phones, to build one, with tightly-integrated Google control over the software load. There are many nuances to such an approach.
The device could be tightly integrated, but not Google branded. It could be Google branded but not exclusive. It could operate as an unlocked data-only device on a single air interface or several.
A Google-branded and controlled device might fly in the face of the open source nature of the operating system, which so far has featured a loosely-coupled approach.
It also might open a new and unwanted level of channel conflict with the firms that are counting on Android to power their own devices and create a robust applications business. On the other hand, such a move could be viewed as an effort to demonstrate what is possible using Android, more than anything else.
The current rumors say the device is built by HTC, is quite thin, does not have a keyboard, and uses voice recognition for virtually all apps.
Cynics might argue "leaking" rumors of a game-changing device are a time-tested way of "freezing" sales of competitive devices. And there is at least some anecdotal evidence that some potential Android sales are on hold until the rumors convincing are disproved or confirmed.
To be sure, any Google move to build a tightly-integrated device, Google branded and supported, would be a fundamental shift in approach that would imperil its effort to foster widespread use of the Android operating system by a wide range of manufacturers and service providers.
Apple is the only company in the mobility business that delivers both the hardware and software on a tightly-controlled basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment