“Google started selling the Nexus One phone this week. The company also provides its Android operating system to other handset makers, rivaling Microsoft’s Windows Mobile,” Bass reports. “Because Google now sells its own phone, handset makers may worry the company will prioritize its own product over theirs, Bach said. That could push some to stop using Google’s software, he said.”
“‘Doing both in the way they are trying to do both is actually very, very difficult,’ he said in an interview yesterday from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas,” Bass reports. “‘Google’s announcement sends a signal where they’re going to place their commitment. That will create some opportunities for us and we’ll pursue them.'”
MacDailyNews Take: Smack! Windows Mobile sucks. You suck. Steve Jobs is cool. And Ballmer is a pathetic old maaan. iPhone, bitch!
Bass continues, “The Nexus One is manufactured by Taiwan’s HTC Corp., which designed the device with Google… ‘No one has ever succeeded in selling their own device while trying to license to partners simultaneously,’ said Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at Los Angeles-based research firm Interpret LLC. ‘As much as Google can say it’s not a Google phone, the phone says Google on it. They’re going to have to convince their licensees they’re not in competition with them.'”
Bass reports that Microsoft’s Bach said, “‘Over time you have to decide whether your approach is with the partners or more like an Apple approach that is more about Apple.'”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Yet more proof that Microsoft doesn’t get it. Apple’s approach is more about delighting customers than anything else. You should try it sometime, Robbie.
(What kind of a grown man is named Robbie?)
Anyone from MS is incapable of mentioning Apple in a sentence without a followup dig of some sort. It’s corporate policy.
Of course Bach is the expert at Zuning its partners, so he’s qualified to give Google advice.
“iPhone, bitch!”
Classic.
…or should I have commented:
“Rack-em!”
I’m a grown man named Robby.
And no, it’s not a nick name.
“That could push some to stop using Google’s software.”
And do what, go back to Microsoft?
Sure more about Apple, and how does Apple survive I wonder? Yes, by giving people a better option with a award winning industrial design and top notch software integration with powerful well designed hardware. Yes, it’s all about Apple.
The irony of an MS exec criticizing Google for using “strategies” that MS invented… this is utterly priceless.
Hey, cut it out!
Did not Apple license its software to others, for a fee now less, at one time? Did not work very well as I recall.
“The irony of an MS exec criticizing Google for using “strategies” that MS invented… this is utterly priceless.”
HAHAHA Amazing isn’t it?
Microsux Winblows and Steve Ballmer!
“Its funny because he’s fat!”
You know you’ve won when the competition starts taking shots at each other
…”What kind of a grown man is named Robbie?”
A comedian (Robbie Coltrane, the actor behind “Hagrid” of Harry Potter fame, among many other funny roles).
HTC needs to buy Palm and zune all over Microsoft while telling Google to go palm themselves. Then HTC can go their own way to being one of the leaders in the Smart Phone industry. HTC can make a much bigger impact in the smart phone market then either Google, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM, or any of the small run big name companies out there in the market today.
Robbie Williams (the fat dancer out of Take That)
Did I miss something? I thought the Google software was free. So, there is no undercutting. It is the cost of making and selling the phone plus ZERO for the Google Android OS.
How is that undercutting? Is Google asking for something or charging for the OS like Microsoft does?
‘No one has ever succeeded in selling their own device while trying to license to partners simultaneously,’ said Michael Gartenberg.
Nokia comes to mind. Sells Symbian, now gives it away, and sells 43% of all cell phones sold on earth.
You are missing something. The issue is if Google would equip its own phone with a newer version of Android not available to other phone makers. Google would then be giving itself an advantage to sell more of its own branded phone over, say, Droid.
Robbie Robertson, one of the geniuses behind The Band and songwriter of “The Weight,” a classic rock tune.
@Tyk
And that is exactly what Google did they put Android 2.1 on the new Phone before releasing it to there partners.
“Who else is gonna bring you
a broken arrow”
– Robbie
Geez that’s as crazy as say rebranding a Toshiba MP3 player while screwing all your parters who you were going to “playforsure” with!
Too bad he didn’t actually say Zuned, cuz that would, of course be, FRIENDLY FIRE!
@HughB
“Did not Apple license its software to others, for a fee now (know) less, at one time? Did not work very well as I recall.”
Not only did Apple license the OS, it also licensed the logic board. BUT, Apple allowed it’s “partners” to use the same OS as it was using on it’s own computers, unlike Google who’s using the newest version of the OS and their “partners” are using an older versions, of which some applications are not compatible. That’s a big difference.
Where Apple got into trouble was their “partners” started selling computers for less than Apple and Apple was losing a ton of money (lost hardware sales), even with the licensing fees. Then Jobs came in and stopped the practice. The largest of the competitors was Power Computing, who’d set-up a very good on-line store, so Jobs bought the company and used their web design team to rebuild Apple’s on-line store. Motorola was the biggest loser, as Jobs D.C’ed their license (or didn’t renew it, can’t remember) and they were left trying to sell their remaining stock at probably fire-sale prices, not to mention shutting down production lines and laying off people, as with Power Computing. I believe Umax also was making Apple clones and had a similar fate.
It all turned out to be a good move for Apple (it helped save the company), but really screwed the “partners” and Apple was highly criticized for this move. M$ has done similar numerous times with their software “partners” (“Let us buy you or we’ll put you out of business.”) & then the Zune/Plays for Sure debacle.
Apple is a hardware company who writes it’s own OS and important applications. Google is a software company that’s trying to get into hardware supply. I doubt they have a single hardware engineer on payroll. What Google should’ve done is to design a reference platform phone with specific hardware requirements and a consistent screen type/size. License that and the OS to it’s partners (even for a fee) and allow them to customize the software/applications to their liking, but requiring certain functionally remain consistent. That way their “partners” could design a unique phone, but developers could be assured their applications would run on all versions of the phone. Also, allow the phone OS to be user upgradable (like the iPhone), unlike today where it’s not. Anyway, that’s my two cents worth…