Vendor vs Competitor

As part of Motorola Mobility, Google will get a huge number of mobile patents. When compared price quoted in the recent patent auction, 12 odd Billion dollars for MMI seems like a bargain. This deal might also help to reinvent GoogleTV. But Android now has to take a different course.

A few years back with PlaysForSure, MTP and WMP Microsoft managed to establish and support a reasonable ecosystem competing with iPod, iTunes and Apple store. All of that died when Microsoft launched Zune player. Zune itself didn’t adhere to anything that Microsoft advocated. Suddenly from being a reliable partner, Microsoft became a competitor in the eyes of media player manufacturers. Now there is no PlaysForSure and of course no credible competition to iPod.

Android changed the mobile phone arena completely. It lent reliability and brand name to not so trust worthy devices like Samsung mobiles. It helped Apple’s competitors to gang-up and compete as a united front. It helped to pitch feature against feature instead of one brand vs another or one device vs another.

Now with MMI under Google’s fold, will other mobile manufactures trust Google? Will Open Handset Alliance be still relevant? Will MMI get any additional advantage over others w.r.t Android? Google tried to address these concerns by saying that MMI will be a separate entity. But still, Google has to take care of these things for Android to survive. If not…

Samsung already is promoting Bada platform along with its app store. If it sees any foul play by MMI, it might shift its entire focus to Bada OS. Although questionable, Samsung might be able brush up Bada OS/store and make it reliable. Then that will demarcate clear battle lines.

Apple with its own OS

Motorola with Android

Nokia with Windows Phone

Samsung with Bada OS

Blackberry with QNX

Fringe players LG, Sony Ericsson, Asian mobile manufactures and new entrants will be facing the cross fire. Only exception will be HTC. HTC diversifies its platforms and tries to be everyone’s ally. Now will be forced to take a bet.

Next thing to watch is any developments from Samsung and HTC.

Don’t be Evil!

Does it sound familiar? Well, that’s a good sign. First let’s define what evil is. Is earning profits a evil? Hold on, I am not going to discuss about ‘Human face of Capitalism’ or ‘Right to live’ or ‘Purpose of Life’ here. I will leave that to my anonymous blog (Yes, I do have one). Someday I also want to talk about ‘Corporate Mottos, Visions and Missions’ and its practical relevance. But for now let’s stick to Google’s business philosophy.

How many of you think that the stuff available over the Internet should be paid for? At least I haven’t thought so. Until recently, I had a feeling that what ever is available over Internet is free; Internet is open, if someone charges for some service then he is exploiting me. But how different is this service over internet is different from service over traditional channels? It doesn’t sound odd, if someone charges for something outside Internet!

Probably it is due to historical reasons like Internet being popular primarily among College-going-students. But it is also because of a few giant corporations promoting this image. For example, Google tries to give all the information for free and generate revenues through ads. It even buys out small service providers and makes their service free there-by attracting more users to its fold and hence more ad revenues. So what, it’s all looking good…

But, what is happening to so many industries that depend on providing these services? Aren’t they getting killed in the process? I would think Google follows ‘Disruptive Business Model’. It tries to make everything free and kills every other player in the Internet to retain its top-slot or at least to sustain in the business.

Someone please define what EVIL is…