Google vs. Android Posted on Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 at 3:23 pm. PTWritten by Jim Dalrymple I really like Ben Bajarin’s analysis. John C. Bland II His title doesn’t match the conclusion: Google Services need expansion.Happy to see someone state the Android purpose just as I’ve been saying here for the longest. matthewmaurice Sure, and Windows Phone just needs apps.The question is if either will get what they need before their commercial viability ends. As we learned today, unless something drastically changes Android is really only commercially viable for Samsung and a few of small Chinese hardware vendors. And Ben’s point is that in places like China, Android but not Google’s Android has a future.Google’s Android is great in North America and the UK, but it’s just decent to essentially useless in the rest of the world. The fact that China is a place where it’s essentially useless should set off alarm bells. The Bens over at Cubed seem to be big fans of Xiaomi, and they seem to think that if Xiaomi can establish themselves as the Android SERVICE providers of China, they can fork ASOP and be quite happy as a decent sized fish in a fairly big pond long after Google adds Android to the list of abandoned products and is touting ChromePhones and ChromePads. John C. Bland II If Xiaomi does that, great. They are using Android as it was intended.The premise is set as Google is fighting against Android and that’s just false. Google has a highly successful fork and the services need to break into new territories for mass expansion.Either the services expand or someone else will do it. That’s the article and it is perfectly fine, for Android, if someone does just that. matthewmaurice I’m not sure anyone but Larry Page and Andy Rubin really know what was intended for Android, and whether that still holds true is probably only known by Page, Sundar Pichai, and a few others.Bajarin’s premise is that “Android” is a platform for creating platforms, ASOP being [a decent] one, Google Play Services (for lack of a better term) is another, but so are Fire OS and MIUI. While not commercially significant now, every Fire OS and MIUI user is by definition NOT a Google Play Services user, and likely never will be–on those platforms. As the users of those, and other similar (but not GPS), OSes increase, especially in regions/markets where Google Play Services aren’t, fully, available we end up with the Android vs Google['s Android] title of the article.When that market is as big/important as China, that dichotomy becomes a big deal. Is a Google-less [vis-à-vis GPS] Android bad for Google? I don’t know. But I can tell you that a Google-less Android is definitely not good for it. John C. Bland II I don’t get why it is so hard for people to accept Android’s state goals. It was cemented in a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rYozIZOgDk. The goal is and was clear.So again, pertaining to Play Services, Android is not in a battle with Google but Play Services is in danger of being replaced through forking.Annnnndddd…ok. That’s part of the stated goals. It’s either that or go iOS and lock it down. matthewmaurice “I don’t get why it is so hard for people to accept Android’s state goals” Because Google is NOT a not-for-profit corporation. Free software that doesn’t, sufficiently, benefit them is not in their DNA, just ask Google Reader, Wave, Buzz and/or Jaiku users.“It was cemented in a video” Just because some guys say it on camera doesn’t make it true, and even if it was true then it doesn’t mean that it’s true now.“Android is not in a battle with Google but Play Services is in danger of being replaced through forking.” Uh, I think, in Bajarin’s mind, it is. Granted it’s not a titanic existential struggle for Goggle’s future viability. But If the second clause in that sentence is true, then it would validate Ben’s premise of “Google [Play Services Android] vs [GPS-less] Android” being a dichotomy we’re seeing play out, and in the largest mobile market in the world especially.As for “[i]t’s either that or go iOS and lock it down”, I’m willing to bet Page wishes he would have. It will be telling to see if the ChromePhone and ChromePads we’ll surely see in the future will be open source or walled-gardens. I unequivocally believe they’ll be be as proprietary as iOS and far less transparent about privacy settings.And don’t feel bad, I don’t get why it’s so hard for people to accept that Google isn’t a technology company, but an advertising sales company that uses technology to acquire user data which makes its ads much more lucrative. John C. Bland II If the video came out today, sure you could question it. If it came out 6 years ago AND Google has held true to the state goals….ehhhhhhhhh. Your argument loses weight by throwing out a video Google has proven true.I wouldn’t doubt they have considered the locked down approach being better for Android but considering Page I’d say he has no desire for that.Meh…you can miss me w/ the ad pitch.