Android open source enthusiasts will like to tell you because of its open and get the final victory. Unfortunately, however, this situation will not occur. Historical experience tells us clearly, industry leaders need to have sufficient profitability, and this is now open Android platform do not have.
Does not make any commitment to open
From the ideological point of view, "open" very attractive. How can anyone not want their technology to quickly achieve a leading position, and is not affected other companies patent barrier, thus to get more interest? But the fact is that very few really want to make money the company will adopt this approach.
▲ The picture above shows the first quarter of this year Google Play App Store and comparison of data (Source: App Annie)
Years ago, I had thought that a monopoly by Microsoft with Windows PC systems field, it will be Apple's take the high road and low road close to the people to go for Linux break.
Later it turns out, I only guessed half. Apple in its own sphere beat Microsoft, but Linux has always failed to rise on the desktop side, unable to pose a serious threat to Windows. Even Google to revive the name of the Linux launch Chrome OS, and almost no impact on the market.
Now, in the field of smart phone operating system, Apple's iOS system, and in a sense very similar to the year of Windows. Compared to other platforms number of developers, iOS platform very large number of developers. In the smart phone operating system, was played by the Linux "open source" role, now powered by Google's Android system to play.
Only the tube very optimistic proponents of Android it will win the war, but generally speaking, the majority of Android-based products are currently unable to make money.Products to make money fatigue, but also makes the developers who can not profit. All this has led to the current Android does not have a solid platform, most of the Android developers who can only stop losing money.
In large part, this is because the so-called "free" do not want to attract too much to pay for applications, services, or hardware, or even block ads low value users. This is a direct result of platforms can not effectively generate revenue. Because of the presence of these users, many manufacturers will not be able to make money from Android and the Web client. In the Web client and the Android platform, Google's revenue is much less than Apple. Apple relying only 22% of the market share of its revenues after blasting to Google.Throughout the year 2012, Google's revenue was $ 50 billion, which also includes Motorola's hardware revenues. In contrast, Apple's most recent quarter earnings to more than $ 54 billion.
When Google tried to enter the hardware market with Motorola Nexus, Apple iAd has already passed the most profitable advertising business into her arms. Apple relies on its high-value customer base, access to more advertisers of all ages.
Less open and more revenue
Android camp is also the most profitable those not very open to manufacturers. As we all know, Samsung is the Android camp boss, this camp is basically the only truly successful company. Mainly due to Samsung's Android-based design and carry out a large number of independent development of new features, coupled with large-scale marketing, was able to rival with Apple, has made the current results.
Many people may have noticed, the Samsung Galaxy S4 and Note 2 publicize this flagship model, it does not over-emphasize the concept of Android system. But will focus on some of the propaganda developed, differentiated features, such as floating window, S-Pen and so on.
Samsung's success in large part because of its emphasis on self-designed and began to take the difference of the road. Samsung is not relying on "open" Android has achieved the results now, but only through their differences have been successful. Samsung aware of this problem, began to focus on development cooperation with Intel Tizen system. Although Tizen also wearing "open source system" hat, but Samsung is concerned, this led by their own system developed, it will undoubtedly be customized more than Android, which will be more differentiated products.
"Open source" software does not necessarily need to be open, like Motorola who had worked in China offering the Linux system phone. Motorola was just a way to sell open source hardware only, resulting in a gain. Similarly, Google also uses open source software to sell advertising services, as well as open source software by Apple is its deep integration with the hardware, and finally by the earnings.
Open not victorious
Samsung's upcoming Tizen system needs to market test. Samsung's attempt to draw the predecessors of this experience, including PalmSource ACCESS, smart phone platform OpenMoko, software platform LiMo, LiPS, there are tried before the Motorola Linux phones.
Also failed to save the once open fame Nokia. Forced by the pressure of Apple and Google, Nokia had once tried to open source Symbian platform, but it is not the industry to be seen.The same thing is also famous Netscape happened. Netscape browser code has to be "open source" to the Mozilla, but the latter is dependent on third-party smashing into the millions of dollars each year just to survive so far. Like other public trial, unless they have themselves been profitable, otherwise once you stop the injection of funds, this successful model will be halted.
If you look back at history, "open" the achievements is not ideal, it just always looks good only. "Open" is definitely not the magic shortcut to success. From a historical perspective, the "open" as it is usually only deliver value to others, and to abandon a way to commercialize it.
Just opening up is not profitable
Apple's iOS and OS X are based on open source technology despite derived based on, but the stick closed line, to create a differentiated product. MacBook can achieve today's results, largely because OS X is Unix-based. This feature will attract a lot of developers accustomed to using Unix and open source enthusiasts, after all, a bunch of handy under Unix tools are at your fingertips. Therefore, the company may open source software as a basis, but must ultimately profitable or to rely on its unique features or services.
When you observe the reality of this world, you will find that Google itself is a function of advertising through a unique, just like Apple Samsung, as developed through a unique technology based on open source hardware and software technology, resulting in a gain.
So, instead of the open-source software as a shortcut to success, it would be deemed to be able to demonstrate the unique value of the platform, if not as a basis for improvement, then you will not be able to further develop, not to mention money.
Original Link: 36 Krypton - Why open Android not be successful?
