Watching tech companies mismanage their customers’ data and violating their privacy has been a horrifying experience. The debacle between Apple, Facebook, and Google is just the most recent example of data mismanagement. This year, I decided to secure (most) of my privacy online, and I thought I’d share what I did.Read More
Technology companies are slowly making it more difficult to move between platforms and this is bad for usersRead More
Early mobile device helped fuel the app economy. While revolutionary at the time, this strategy has created "app silos" - a concept that conflicts with the notion of the open web.
In a Re/Code article, Mark Bergen talks about how Google is trying to plan and envision a world beyond apps. The search giant's strategy might originate from self-interest, but Bergen feels there is more to it.
Google earns more money when people are on the mobile Web, not in apps. Publicly, the company has voiced support for solving the nagging problems of apps, discovery and dormancy. Internally, however, chatter is less about crippling apps than imagining a world beyond them.
Currently the app experience and the web experience are quite different, but Google is trying to make transitioning between them more seamless. Google's goal is to index all mobile apps. When a user does a mobile search for something - a movie for example - there might be an option to open that result in the IMDB app (an app that has a list of TV shows and movie information). As of last Tuesday, Google is going to down-rank mobile websites that display adds that encourage users to install the app instead. Why? Because Google's argument is that anything that prevents the user from seeing the content is bad. However, Google isn't the only company that's trying this strategy.
A primary vehicle for doing so is app indexing and deep linking, methods to tie content within and between apps. Apple and a host of Silicon Valley startups are doing this as well. But Google’s effort is unique in that it is wrapped tightly with search and artificial intelligence — and, like Google’s approach to the Web, it is all-encompassing in its scope.
Though, as Mark Bergen notes, indexing the world of apps might be more difficult that anticipated.
Reaching that world beyond apps may be more difficult for Google than it was before. Google needs the buy-in from app makers. And it may need to fight off rivals and regulators. Competition authorities in the European Union, currently pursuing a case against Google for its comparison shopping product, have said they are open to extending the case to other services. At least one complainant noted the issue raised this week, of blocking of app-install ads in search results, in its statement to the EU, according to documents seen by Re/code.
Google was the first major tech company to enter the wearables market with its Android Wear platform. Like the Apple Watch, Android Wear devices (which are made by a variety of third party electronics manufacturers) have only been compatible with Android. Google changes all that by making Android Wear iPhone compatible.
The Verge's Dieter Bohn broke the story.
Very few people have had to bother grappling with the idea of notifications and computers on their wrists, because not all that many people are buying smartwatches. There’s a real sense that everybody’s waiting to see how things shake out, and I don’t blame them. Smartwatches aren’t really ready for everybody yet, not the way that smartphones are. But the smartphone comparison is apt: nothing drove innovation in that space faster than healthy competition between Apple and Google. If competition is what it takes to get smartwatches ready for the mainstream, even Apple Watch users should be glad about Android Wear coming to the iPhone.
Bohn is correct that smartwatches have not exactly sold all that well. While the Apple Watch has likely outsold all its competitors combined, Apple's wearable sales are small potatoes compared to the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Google has had similar trouble selling Android Wear, but it now has a new strategy.
The app should be rolling out worldwide soon. It’s been a long time coming — and it means that Google will be challenging the Apple Watch on its home turf. Those Android Wear watches will be both cheaper and more varied than the Apple Watch — just like Android itself.
The iOS Android Wear app will allow newer watches to pair directly with an iPhone. The strategy borrows from Apple's playbook. In 2001, the iPod began as an Apple only device, but soon the Cupertino company made a version of iTunes for Windows. The strategy not only sold a whole lot more iPods, but it got Apple devices into peoples' homes. The iPod, and the iPhone in 2007, were huge Trojan horses. These devices encouraged customers to migrate to Apple's iPad and Mac computers. Is Google trying to do the same thing? Perhaps. The Android Wear experience is more limited on iOS than Android, due to Apple's restrictions. But, by providing a glimpse of what Android Wear can do on iOS, iPhone users could be swayed into converting to an Android phone to get the full experience.
The problem is that there are restrictions in iOS that prevent certain things from working. It’s easy (and partially true) to rail against the locked-down nature of the iPhone, but in our conversations, everybody at Google demurred from wishing they could do more. Instead, Google just worked with the tools that Apple makes available over Bluetooth — and they turn out to be quite powerful.
Now that Android Wear and Pebble both support iOS and Android, the Apple Watch has some clear disadvantages. Android Wear devices are varied in both design and price - with many models being priced at half the cost of Apple's entry level watch. If the Apple Watch is supposed to be the next runaway product that moves users toward the Apple ecosystem, it too might have to support other platforms in the future.
Source: The Verge
Technology companies and cellular carriers have a tense relationship. Each party is dependant on the other for survival. But what if an electronics manufacturer became a cellular carrier? In a report published by Business Insider's James Cook, Apple might be aiming to do just that.
Sources close to Apple say the company is privately trialling an MVNO service in the US but is also in talks with telecoms companies in Europe about bringing the service there too.
An MVNO is a virtual carrier network that sees technology companies lease space from established carriers and sell it to customers directly.
So if Apple is leasing equipment from other cellular carriers, how does this change things? Well, in this scenario the customer would pay Apple for all monthly cellular charges. Apple can also switch between carriers using its own custom SIM in order to provide the best network service. The report claims that Apple probably won't be able to launch such a service for another five years.
Apple is also testing a service that would allow Siri to answer calls instead of a pre-recorded voicemail message. Siri would be able to transcribe voicemail so users could read it as a text, which is more efficient than sifting through multiple audio messages. This "iCloud Voicemail" service could also tell the caller where the user is and why he/she cannot pick up the phone. It's possible this service will launch sometime in 2016 with the release of iOS 10.
It's not a secret that smartphone makers want to move into the cellular business and cut out the middlemen that are the carriers. Google has already began such an endeavour with its Project Fi. It's quite possible that in the future, carriers will simply be building and maintaining the infrastructure behind the scenes, while more front facing companies like Apple and Google handle the contracts and customer relations.
Apple has denied the rumour that it is interested in creating its own MVNO.
There are many companies in the space we broadly refer to as "The Internet of Things" (IoT). But the IoT is fragmented and there is little interoperability between platforms. Getting developers to dedicate time to a specific platform is very important, so who is winning over developers in the IoT race? Apparently Apple and Google, according to Matt Asay writing for Read Write.
As I've written, to flourish the Internet of Things market needs millions of developers by 2020. Fortunately, the market is actively minting new developers each day, with the global Internet of Things developer population set to top 4.5 million by 2020:
Asay notes that many of these IoT developers are from the Asia-Pacific region, but these developers still identify as "mobile developers." Google and Apple will soon change that.
As VisionMobile Q1 2015 Developer Economics survey data reveals, 53% of mobile developers are already actively working on Internet of Things projects. The top two markets within the field are smart homes (37% of relevant developers are working in this area) and wearables (35%).
The number of developers getting paid to work on IoT projects also matters. Most IoT developers work on hobby projects (30%) or side projects (20%). These developers are more likely to become full-time IoT developers if they can work on platforms that don't require them to learn an abundance of new skills.
In the IoT space, Apple now has many platforms including HomeKit and Apple Watch. Google has Nest and Android Wear. Both companies offer platforms that are similar to their existing mobile platforms. So, the company with the most IoT developers is at an advantage, and right now that's Apple and Google.
First Google tried Glass, and then the search giant entered the wrist wearable - or smartwatch - market. The failure of Glass to catch on as a mainstream product is really a result of social norms (and technological panic) having not caught up with the technology. People already wear devices on their bodies, whether they be watches for fitness trackers.
AndroidWear had a bright future, since it worked in conjunction with one of the most successful operating systems of all time. Android. But according to Brian P. Rubin, writing for ReadWrite, Google’s hardware partners might be moving away from the smartwatch platform. HTC is rumoured to ship its own smartwatch devices and OS, Samsung uses Tizen for most of its wearables, and LG will be using webOS for future wearable devices. What is going on?!
Rubin argues this strategy will backfire. It’s clear that electronics manufactuers aspire to the Apple model of owning both the software and the hardware, rather than be a device maker for an operating system company.
Apple has been so successful for so long that its control-everything strategy has become a siren song to other hardware manufacturers. But there’s a reason that there’s only one Apple: It’s very, very hard to simultaneously earn top marks in hardware and software design.
Rubin backs his claim by arguing that, so far, AndroidWear manufactuers haven't created compelling devices.
The Gear Live and its Tizen cousins, the Gear 2 and Gear 2 Neo, all feature proprietary watch bands you can't replace and bulky watch bodies that really stand out ... just not in a good way. The most recent Samsung-made smartwatch, the Tizen-based Gear S, is a curved monstrosity that takes the worst design trends of the last few years and throws them all together.
Same for both of LG’s Android Wear devices, the G Watch and the more popular G Watch R—they’re big and clunky. Even the most successful Android Wear device, Motorola’s Moto 360, suffered from poor battery life, attributed to its aged chipset. With the software side of things already taken care of, how did these hardware makers still fail to deliver?
Make sure to check out the full article in the source below.
The Android OS creator Cyanogen has announced that it plans to reduce its dependance on Google. Cyanogen's CEO Kirk McMaster has expressed many controversial comments regarding Google and Samsung and now he plans push Android toward becoming more open and less reliant on Google's control. He made his intentions clear at The Information's San Fransisco event titled "The Next Phase of Android."
We’re making a version of Android that is more open so we can integrate with more partners so their servicers can be tier one services, so startups working on [artificial intelligence] or other problems don’t get stuck having you have to launch a stupid little application that inevitably gets acquired by Google or Apple. These companies can thrive on non-Google Android.
McMaster argued that a service like Google Now is integrated into the core of OS in a way that third party developers cannot. His value proposition is that companies that wish to partner with Cyanogen would have deeper access and wouldn't be restricted by Google. Android Central's Bogdan Petrovan made the observation that Cyanogen is positioning itself as a platform.
Though Cyanogen's new strategy might anger Google, it doesn't matter because the company plans to be free of the tech giant's grasp.
We’ve barely scratched the surface in regards to what mobile can be. Today, Cyanogen has some dependence on Google. Tomorrow, it will not. We will not be based on some derivative of Google in three to five years. There will be services that are doing the same old bulls— with Android, and then there will be something different. That is where we’re going here.”
When we think of Android, we often associate it with Google. Whether the user has a Samsung, HTC, LG, or Motorola device, the Google apps are included because those manufacturers have entered Google's Handset Alliance. The Google brand is always present. As a result, when Google (or other companies) release market share numbers for Android, we assume all these devices are running a version that has been blessed by Google. This is not the case. In fact, there are many non-Google variants of Android - upwards of 20 percent of all Android phones sold. Companies like Xiaomi - a hugely popular Chinese OEM - makes a very elegant variant of Android that is sold throughout Asia. Cyanogen looks like it aims to become one of these outliers. McMaster revealed that Cyanogen wants to give users access to alternative app stores and services.
This is an enormous challenge. Cyanogen has worked to include Google apps on consumer devices (such as the One Plus One) that ship with their version of the OS. How they can retain this relationship with Google and release a competitor is unknown. That being said, Samsung - which is arguably the most successful Android OEM - has its own services and it has been playing with the idea of release its Tizen competitor.
Source: Android Central
To make life a little easier for its developers, Google has released Android Studio which is a new development environment. After two years of development, this release improves upon Eclipse and offers things like intelligent code editing, code templates, GitHub integration, multi screen environments, many virtual devices sizes, and more.
The creation of a "one size fits all" tool for Android developers is very important considering the wide variety of devices and screen sizes (and screen ratios) on the market. Apple's Xcode environment has long been lauded as a superior (by some), but Android Studio looks to have closed that gap significantly.
One could make the argument that style and hardware design are not essential components of a good smartphone, notebook, or even desktop computer. For most people, they just need a device that works. Yet, as mobile computing becomes increasingly intimate in nature, style will inevitably be a determining factor. There's a big difference between wearing a device on your wrist (or head) and something that only surfaces from the depths of your pocket.
Adriana Lee, writing for Read Write, talks about the importance of style when considering a wearable device. Slick design was not responsible for her foray into smartwatch territory. She became used to the Pebble Watch providing useful notifications and glanceable information; the transition to using an Android Wear device was a natural progression.
When I began checking out smartwatches last year, I didn’t realize how dependent I’d become on having alerts piped to my wrist. Now I’m obsessed with finding just the right device to deliver them.
This is a tricky mission. I’ve had a Pebble smartwatch strapped to me for several months. Now I’m running around with the LG G Watch, the first Android Wear device to hit the market. In between, I’ve peeked at numerous other contenders vying for the valuable real estate on my arm.
Though it has not become a mainstream product category yet, the wearable market is estimated to pull in $5.26 billion this year and $9.2 billion over the next four years. Style and comfort will likely determine which devices succeed and which fail. After all, these devices are visible to all our friends and colleagues.
Lee argues the LG G Watch (her first Android Wear device) does not have the necessary hardware sex appeal to entice buyers, particularly females.
The LG G Watch is just the beginning of what will probably be a flood of Android Wear watches. So it's possible that some of my criticisms will be addressed later on. What probably won’t, though, is this: The predominant design ethos yields an awfully clunky gadget that's just not comfortable to wear.
Like wrists tend to be, mine are rounded. The G watch’s large, unforgivingly straight body teeters on top, with the rubber strap lashing it in place. It feels like having a stiff board tied to my arm.
Battery life will also be a point of contention for future wearables. Lee notes that the Pebble afforded her 5-7 days of use, while the LG G Watch lasted a mere day and a half.
Android wear does seem to get it right on the software front, especially for a first generation product. Unlike Android - which comes in a variety of unpredictable flavours - Android Wear should be an identical experience on every devices, sans the hardware and performance differences. The Motorola 360 looks to have the best implementation of Google's new mobile platform, as it features a much more elegant design, round clock face, and premium materials. Not surprisingly, while Android Wear has garnered considerable excitement, everyone is waiting to see what Apple unveils. Though Android devices typically have a price advantage - as OEMs try to make their devices appealing to a broader audience - Apple might be able to get away with charging a premium in the wearable category and still leave its competitors in the dust. If style and sex appeal are in fact paramount factors to customers, companies like Apple (and perhaps HTC) will have the advantage.
Make sure to check out Lee's full article in the source below.
Source: Read Write
Apparently Google offers "developer workflows" to package the Chrome apps.
You can run your Chrome app on a device or emulator using the command-line or an IDE, and you can also use the Chrome Apps Developer Tool to run your app on an Android device without the need to install the mobile platform’s SDK or an IDE.
The news is not completely a surprise since users can now launch Chrome apps from the desktop of their Windows Machine or Mac. It's also a typical move from the search giant. Google often releases redundant or competing products (think Wave, G+, G Talk, Hangouts) or "test" concepts in the open. Though, Chrome is clearly more than a test at this point. Chrome apps allow the user to create, store, and access information in the cloud very easily and on any platform. The only question is whether having both Chrome and Android will create confusion for the user and whether or not they will begin to compete with one another. Some apps are available on Android and Chrome. Is there a use case for having both?
In some ways Chrome seems like a trojan horse and is specifically targeted at iOS. Another point of consideration is the potential security risks. If Chrome apps are given greater access to the computer hardware (thereby emulating native apps) then this could be yet another point of exploitation for malware. Another possibility is that Google plans to continue to develop Chrome into a full fledged OS and having it available on a variety of platforms will familiarize people with the concept and brand, therefore making it easier to convince customers to switch from OSX or Windows to Chrome OS.
Chrome is certainly not something to underestimate, and its evolution continues to surprise even its most enthusiastic patriots.
Source: The Next Web
For some time, the tech world has speculated about the relationship between Google and its third-party OEMs, in particular Samsung. The Korean electronics giant has been fairly active promoting another Linux-based mobile operating system called Tizen, and some tech journalists have speculated that eventually Samsung will abandon Android once it properly expands its own app and multimedia ecosystem. However, now that prospect seems much less likely.
Google and Samsung have just signed a 10-year cross-license patent agreement. According to Google's Allen Lo "we’re pleased to enter into a cross-license with our partner Samsung... By working together on agreements like this, companies can reduce the potential for litigation and focus instead on innovation."
According to Jeff John Roberts of GigaOm, Lo might have been taking a stab at Apple and/or Microsoft who have opted to "...employ a controversial technique known as 'privateering' in which they arm shell companies with old patents,'" thereby breaking up a company's patent portfolio and reducing the possibility of counter-suits because such shells have no real assets. Roberts also notes the agreement did not provide any details regarding the number of patents involved. Their agreement is also a little late, since Apple has been on the winning end of recent patent lawsuits.
This cross-license could result in greater collaboration between the two companies, but to what extent is still a mystery. Samsung has been actively creating propietary "alternatives" to Google's popular in-house apps (such as the calendar, voice assistant, browser, keyboard, etc), so perhaps Google will work to better integrate their services in Galaxy devices and reduce the need to clone apps. Or, the agreement could simply be a way for both companies to protect themselves from Apple and Microsoft from further litigation.
Android is a strange beast. While it's a Google pet project, its success is more of a result of its hardware partners - most notably Samsung. Statistics on Android OEMs show that Samsung is overwhelmingly dominant, displacing former giant HTC. But, Samsung has been in a bit of a competition with Google as of late. Samsung clearly does not enjoy being tied to Google's services, and it might be looking to move away from the search giant.
Samsung, Intel, Huawei, and Vodafone are putting money behind another mobile OS. Tizen is an open source platform based on (you guessed it) Linux. Allegedly, it's very flexible and supports HTML 5 apps in addition to other cross platform technologies. In fact, its support for HTML 5 arguably makes it more flexible than Android. However, Samsung is the only manufacturer of a Tizen device - the NX300 - a mirrorless camera.
The question remains, will Tizen take off as a serious competitor to Android?
As Nick Sarafolean notes in an Android and Me article, Samsung phones have become almost as synonymous as Apple's iPhone. One can see them everywhere. Right now, Galaxy phones run Android, but they might not have to.
But an Android world without Samsung is entirely plausible. With Samsung being one of the biggest backers of Tizen, they could have plans to leave Android for Tizen, their own operating system that could also be used by others. It’s practically a formula for taking off in the mobile world. With Samsung having even more power over the software of their devices, they could push out updates quickly and easily tie in their own services to Tizen. Samsung already has the web of services to help start their own operating system. They even have their own app store, although it’s rather barren.
Sarafolean also points out that Samsung could split the difference and continue to make Android phones while also supporting Tizen. This could work out if Samsung slowly shifts itself to Tizen. If Samsung does move to Tizen it will be a big blow to Android, for many consumers don't even associate Samsung with Android and will simply move to the new platform unwillingly. Such a scenario could create considerably more competition in the mobile space.
The obvious downside to Tizen is the limited ecosystem. Google has built an platform with Google Play that many tech pundits argue rivals, or even surpasses, Apple's rich ecosystem. Obviously Tizen, like Windows Phone, would have an uphill battle on its hands. In addition to HTML 5 support, it would have to offer a powerful value proposition in order to convince developers to port their apps to yet another platform.
According to Android Community Android's enterprise market share could double by 2018. In recent history, Apple has been making the most headway in enterprise, surpassing Blackberry in many respects and encroaching on Microsoft. But, for many Android is the preferred platform.
ABI research. The firm says that current sales of Android devices as they relate to enterprise solutions is roughly $54 billion. That’s expected to rise to $92 billion by 2018.
ABI measures growth by looking at a variety of handset manufacturers including HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung, ZTE, and Huawei. While security has been a persistent concern on Android, that isn't so much an issue anymore, and imbedded features such as Google Drive (what used to be Google Docs) are a real selling point.
Source: Android Community
News stories about Android's dominance in mobile never ends. In a Wired article, Marcus Wohlsen speculates that Android might be the MS DOS of our generation.
It's a bold statement to make, but he has some evidence to support his claim. Android has now surpassed 80 percent market share world-wide. In contrast, iOS sits at around 13 percent.
The triumph of Android would seem to vindicate Google's choice not to go head-to-head against Apple with its own proprietary mobile operating system and hardware. In retrospect, it was a no-brainer decision, owing to on very obvious precedent
Of course Wohlsen is talking about Microsoft and DOS, and later Windows. Back then, Apple, Commodore, Atari, and IBM were all players in the computer industry. Yet, Microsoft - a software company - won the race, by selling its operating system to everyone.
Google is a services-driven ad business that makes more money as more people use its services — and use them more often. By giving away an open source operating system that, among other things, helps hardware makers set lower prices, Google ensures maximum exposure to the maximum number of mobile users. Android gets users locked into Google, which lets Google show them more ads. In short, Google wins.
It's hard for Apple, which makes the vast majority of its money from hardware to compete at least in terms of market share. "Meticulously crafting" its hardware is part of Apple's image. Their design and service get people to lineup around the block for their products.
Now, most tech journalists, by touting Android's market share gains, reveal their inner Android fanboy. Wohlsen doesn't do this. Instead, he provides a very sobering analysis. He argues that Apple wins by continuing to keep its system closed. Opening up their platform and "compromising its design principles... would strip Apple of its core value proposition." He says Apple should keep being Apple.
If anything will hurt Apple, it will be price. Mass market pricing has been a winning strategy, and it's something that Microsoft can now accomplish in mobile now that it owns Nokia.
Vic Gundotra, recalling Andy Rubin's initial pitch for Android, stated:
He argued that if Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice.
In an ArsTechnica article, by Ron Amadeo outlines Android's history, focusing on how Google is slowly locking down the platform.
Originally designed as an open source project to combat, what was perceived to be, the inevitable dominance of the iPhone (and Apple) in the mobile space, Android no longer resembles its previous self. Because Android is technically an open source project (though many disagree) it doesn't necessarily mean the platform's huge market-share accurately represents a clear "win" for Google.
As we've seen with the struggles of Windows Phone and Blackberry 10, app selection is everything in the mobile market, and Android's massive install base means it has a ton of apps. If a company forks Android, the OS will already be compatible with millions of apps; a company just needs to build its own app store and get everything uploaded. In theory, you'd have a non-Google OS with a ton of apps, virtually overnight. If a company other than Google can come up with a way to make Android better than it is now, it would be able to build a serious competitor and possibly threaten Google's smartphone dominance. This is the biggest danger to Google's current position: a successful, alternative Android distribution.
While Google's apps are present on the majority of high end Android phones - including Samsung and HTC - the biggest challenger by far has been Amazon. They have deliberately taken the AOSP and opted out of Google's Handset Alliance, taking Android (re-branding it Fire OS) in their own direction.
But Amadeo argues that Google has been slowly closing down Android with each iteration.
There have always been closed source Google apps. Originally, the group consisted mostly of clients for Google's online services, like Gmail, Maps, Talk, and YouTube. When Android had no market share, Google was comfortable keeping just these apps and building the rest of Android as an open source project. Since Android has become a mobile powerhouse though, Google has decided it needs more control over the public source code.
For some of these apps, there might still be an AOSP equivalent, but as soon as the proprietary version was launched, all work on the AOSP version was stopped. Less open source code means more work for Google's competitors. While you can't kill an open source app, you can turn it into abandonware by moving all continuing development to a closed source model. Just about any time Google rebrands an app or releases a new piece of Android onto the Play Store, it's a sign that the source has been closed and the AOSP version is dead.
He uses Google Voice Search as an example. Android AOSP's Google search hasn't changed since the days of Froyo (Android 2.2), and it can only conduct web searches. In contrast, Google's latest version of Android (4.3 and soon to be 4.4) has Google Now - an amazing personal digital assistant with voice recognition, a card interface, and very accurate and relevant predictions and suggestions.
In fact, Amadeo mentions a whole list open source Android apps that Google has slowly replaced including: Android Calendar with Google Calendar, AOSP Keyboard with Google Keyboard, AOSP Camera with Google Camera, and AOSP messaging with Hangouts. The latter will no doubt be the only Android messaging app with the release of 4.4 KitKat - unifying text and IM clients. Google's also been locking in third party manufactures, making them dependant on the Google apps mentioned above. Amadeo even says that Google is heavily restricting its APIs, by breaking apps that run on the Kindle or a non-Google version of AOSP. This is quite important since Google has APIs for Maps, Cloud Messaging, Games, and Location.
Though it's unlikely that third parties like Samsung will become so frustrated that they move to another platform entirely (such as Tizen), there is still a strong possibility that Google will continue to tighten its control over the platform, and push their own hardware and services at the expense of their partners.
Read the full article in the source below.
Following Google's earnings calls meeting, Larry Page noted that the company was "closing in" on their unified product experience, writes Liz Gannes of All Things D.
The takeaway from Google’s satisfactory/meets expectations third-quarter financial results, full as it was of details about traffic acquisition cost bumps and amortization expenses, was actually about the unification of products, according to Google CEO Larry Page’s investor statement. “We are closing in on our goal of a beautiful, simple, and intuitive experience regardless of your device.”
Surprising, Page said that he will not be at all future earnings talks, stressing that his attention was needed elsewhere, but he did have some interesting departing words.
“For years, everyone talked about the multiscreen world. Now it’s arrived, but on a scale few imagined,” says Page. He mentions phones, computers, the home, watches, on Google Glass. (Oh boy, watch mention only a few sentences in. That’ll get people stoked.)
Android sees 1.5 million devices lit up every day, Page says, and he loves Chrome too. But recharging is too much of a sweat.
There were a few interesting questions and reports regarding Google's progress in voice recognition, mobile advertising, self-driving cars, and project loon. The overall feeling from the earnings call is that Google is on the right path, and will continue to tighten and integrate is services across all platforms.
Check out the full transcript in the source.
Sources: All Things D
Next month, the Google Play Store will receive some notable changes. Google will start to highlight apps that are built for certain devices.
Most notably, Google is pushing the "Designed for Tablets" section. A key weakness of Android (according to some technology experts) is Google's lack of tablet apps. Despite their superior scaling methods, it has a ways to go. There have been significantly more tablet apps in recent months, as more and more developers make this a priority.
Developers who want their apps to appear in the tablet section will have to meet a few requirements. There is a tablet optimized checklist they can consult, in addition to a list of optimization tips. Apps that fail to meet Google's standards will be relegated to the "Designed for Phones" section.
Placing higher standards on the Play Store might be a sign that Google is taking on a curator role, and is attempting to streamline and integrate its various services. Having distinct tablet and phone sections for apps is a direct cue from Apple's App Store - a highly curated ecosystem. And this is completely understandable. Google's Nexus tablets are hugely popular, and it's hard to deny they are at least partially responsible for driving more apps to be tablet optimized. Google is in the hardware business now, so has to be sure there are apps that take advantage of all its devices.
Sources: The Next Web
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."
-Alan KayRead More
Business Insider claims that the smart watch market could be worth as much as 9 billion.
Smart watches have been a hot topic as of late, with the Apple iWatch and Samsung equivalents rumored to hit markets late this year and through 2014.
It's an interesting product category considering nobody is quite sure what the implementation will be like. Google Glass is arguably a more obvious form factor, as it functions like a suped-up Bluetooth headset (with an LCD display).
Will we be talking into our wrists soon, or will will these products just be clones of the Pebble Watch? Google just acquired WIMM, an Android based smart watch company. It shows that Google has not put all its chips on Glass, and might see a future in both form factors. Perhaps they are desperate to diversify because of the whole "Glassholes" term.