Microsoft Exec Steve Guggenheimer recently voiced his skepticism regarding Android and its ability to translate to a computing operating system. To quote:
"I'm somewhat sceptical that consumers will begin running to Android right now," said Guggenheimer. "You'll still want your printer to work, you'll still want your software to work. There's a lack of a complete ecosystem around Android."
We usually disagree with what Microsoft says about Android believing that their comments are misguided attempts in disparaging a competitor, but in this case, we think Microsoft has a valid point.
As versatile and exciting as Android has proven itself to be, it still needs to prove itself in the computing arena. Though computer manufacturers are ready to jump into the Android game, we're still not sure if Android is ready for netbook primetime.
What do you guys think?
16 Comments
The thing about Android and netbooks etc is it pushes users to Cloud Computing.
Documents are stored on-line and accessible anywhere (no need to print), and the software you need runs in a browser (I read this story through my G1 for example on Google Reader).
I don't think Android should be meant for high-end Dell computers that have all sorts of devices plugged into it. Android is a light-weight Operating System for mobile devices, not a bloody full featured multimedia Operating System.
Microsoft clearly thinks in the pre-cloud era, and misunderstood what Android is really all about.
But that's just my opinion. :)
I agree with colcoo. Android will be on netbooks and handheld devices (portable devices). Not desktops. Who has printers, scanners, etc hooked up to a netbook or even laptops? Slip your sd card into a printer at kinkos. :)
... or print through bluetooth. Wires are so 90's
Yeah, this from the same company who dogged Android's being free and "how could I go to my shareholders and tell them we're giving away an OS for free".
Microsoft's scared. And what do people do when they're scared? They attack. Why? Because Android is the first OS to truly compete with Windows Mobile, as these two OS's are now the only modern smartphone platforms available on various hardware from differing vendors (Symbian not included because, well, it's a bit dated).
Plus, Freescale and others are actively working on NetBooks. As it's popularity increases, more will write drivers for their devices to work on it.
netbooks are really just a stepping stone towards smaller personal computers that we carry with us all the time and have access to information. Gee that sounds like a smartphone. Give it some time. People will be accessing info and doing all their computing from their pocket smartphone instead of a bulkier netbook eventually. Netbooks are popular now only because they're slicker and cheaper than a notebook computer.
> Give it some time. People will be accessing info and doing all their
> computing from their pocket smartphone instead of a bulkier netbook
> eventually
Not really. No matter how powerful smartphones get, there are a couple of things that will never change - our eyes aren't going to get sharper and our fingers aren't going to get any less clumsy - and those two things are going to prevent smartphones from ever replacing something larger like a netbook or a laptop.
- HCE
Consider how much input the average user does when they're actually using their computer, it's probably very small compared to how much info they take in from the screen and sounds. So inputing data will not be as important. Also there may be new technologies such as projected keyboards & screens, or voice recognition or other interfaces. Never say never. In the long run smaller and smaller computing devices that's more portable WILL win out.
Android has a Linux kernel, which means that your printer is most probably supported. As for applications: compatibility with applications on other popular platforms, aka windows, is the main problem with a new OS. But things get better when your OS is OSS :P
I've said it many times that I really don't want Android on a netbook. I'd rather have a Linux distro like Debian so I can install KDE 4 and kopete and Amarok and all the packages available on a Linux distro.
That being said I'd rather have Android than anything from MS installed. Why ? For 2 reasons:
1) Android is free so I know no money went to MS when purchasing the netbook ( this makes me so happy I can't even describe it here )
2) Android really does have a Linux kernel so I can probably install something like Debian or Ubuntu without too much effort. BTW the Ubuntu folks demoed and Android emulator so no real reason for having Android itself
Android on a Smartphone seems perfect to me, but I just don't see the point of it on a Netbook. Why go the Android route instead of Windows XP? I just don't see any Pros and quite a few Cons. To each his out for sure, but I can't honestly say I'd go out of my way for a netbook running Android.
Android supports the same hardware as Linux, and that's a ton of hardware. Linux implements all the standard USB, disk, and PCI interfaces, so any standards-conforming device just works, without the hassles that Windows makes users go through. And Linux supports a ton of proprietary hardware as well.
On the whole, the range of Linux hardware support is better than OS X and comparable to Windows. Mostly, what Linux doesn't support is weird low-cost hardware that puts a lot of functions into the driver, but that kind of hardware is usually a bad buy anyway.
Android has a Linux kernel, which means that your printer is most probably supported. As for applications: compatibility with applications on other popular platforms, aka windows , is the main problem with a new OS. But things get better when your OS is OSS :P
very bad comment by Microsoft Exec Steve Guggenheimer.
sala ne marvo padse ek var................................
I just bought this bag from replica handbags which located in New York city, it’s wonderful.