Live data from Hacker News

Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

osnews.com

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

#51
post #4

While I'm sure Samsung would love to replace Android with Tizen, I doubt they will actually be able to do it. While Apple and Google make it appear easy to create an OS that users enjoy using, the reality is that it is incredibly difficult. Just look at Windows Phone - I'm fairly sure that Microsoft is more able to create a technically superior OS to Samsung, and I think the amount of money Microsoft has poured into…

"Yet Windows Phone is a dismal failure even with Nokia's huge manufacturing bulk behind it. The only sensible conclusion I can come to is that making a desirable mobile OS is far more difficult than it appears, and that there are numerous 'below the water line' effects that make a mobile OS popular."

I don't have any empirical data to back this up, but in my personal opinion a large reason why Windows Phone just isn't doing so well is because of brand association with 'Windows' and 'Microsoft'.

Microsoft's general appeal to the public is not one of hip and chic and new, which is what Windows Phone marketing has generally been about. Microsoft is associated with corporation and money and monopoly. The appeal of Windows OS to users is that people just use it and it works and sometimes it does things they don't understand and they get viruses and they get angry at it and they have to use Excel and Word. Even if Windows as a product is stellar the old moniker still lurks and it's very difficult to move away from that. People buy Windows because it's Windows. Good or bad. Doesn't matter. And Microsoft clearly has the OS marketshare muscle to force people onto Windows 8 despite it not being very favorable to many at all. Microsoft is just seen as an unappealing 'businessy' corporation for the general public. It doesn't at all attract the young or relatively middle aged chic users that it wants so hard. Windows is just seen as a business brand in general.

Apple already has a well known established brand and image, and Samsung is relatively faceless to the western market (and quite respected in the east) so much so that it can shape its brand image still (Going for the Apple look). Microsoft is simply just too well known to market Windows Phone as Windows Phone.

I honestly believe that if they just set up a different Mobile branch with a new name, rename Windows Phone to something else, and removed some of the "Windowsy" stickers on the Phone's OS, it would sell very very well. As an operating system the core apps work very well together and it's honestly better than Blackberry's and stands as a fair contender with Android in terms of polish. The only real problem is that it's just called Windows Phone.

That, and Microsoft just loves to drop support for older phones (2+ years old). That's a big no-no. Fucking over your already small userbase because you're churning out bigger and more powerful phones to go after the cash prize of young consumers does not bode well. It shows your greedy cunty side and will obviously detract already existing customers... which makes developers not so willing to make apps on your platform, however open and easy and inviting it may be. You are not Android. You do not offer the upgradability option like Android.

But unfortunately Microsoft's goal is to unify all of their products under a few 'key' Windows things. Skype is increasingly becoming more Microsofty and hotmail was turned into outlook. Neither of those things as brands are exactly super appealing. Microsoft is trying to centralize everything a la Google with it's wide plethora of apps and services while simultaneously creating a walled garden of windows only products like Apple.

When I think of outlook I think of being at work and dealing with business emails. I hate that. I don't want to tell you what I think about when I think of Internet Explorer. Associating that with Windows Phone doesn't make me happy. I don't want to take my internet explorer experience with me on the go.

When I think of Android I think of an open platform and flexible. Google's default apps are very open and clean and simple. Chrome mobile is just primary colors and white and sharp with some text. It doesn't fuck around but it doesn't look businessy either. Same goes for the gmail app. The plethora of adequate white space between apps and their overall simple and clean design shapes Google's image as an open and simple company. In general, that's always been how Google has marketed itself and it's products. Windows is trying to copy that same design style to some degree in Windows Phone, but it just doesn't work. That's not the company's history.

Now, going back on topic. Samsung is going to spend a few years actually just making Tizen work as an OS and polishing it, unless they somehow hijack a lot of grunt developers overnight or something. iOS has gone through a lot of polish and testing and Android has taken years to work as well as it is currently today. Yes yes, TouchWiz is Android to many Samsung users. But under the hood Android does quite a bit more than what TouchWiz lets you believe. And there's lots of things that you only learn about once you let something loose in the wild.

Sleep deprived walltexts. I am sorry HN.

Re: Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

#52
I'm sure Samsung wishes that, but you haven't even seen Tizen as a consumer product and you've already decided a winner? That seems like a big overreach. We've seen mobile operating systems that actually looked or worked better than Android or even iOS before, and yet they still failed miserably.

Re: Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

#53

"For most Samsung smartphone owners, TouchWiz is Android, and since Tizen could easily get a TouchWiz-like user interface, the average consumer wouldn't notice a thing." You've got to be kidding. Do you remember the demo? www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1y7CpIaVA Smooth. :/ To be fair, I'm sure they're working on the UI, but UI is something that's hard to get right. It took android what, 4 years to reach a point where it's…

The article got another equivalence wrong too - that Google is Android.

> Add all of this together and it becomes clear what Samsung is going for. The company wants to decrease its dependence on Google, and Tizen is the way they're going to do that.

He is conflating independence from Android as independence from Google. How? What will it use for Maps? Search? Email? Wifi-assisted location data? Moving off Android is about as Google-independent as moving off Chrome.

Re: Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

#54
There's a risk that the assumption is Google cares a lot about Android. I think Google just cares about there not being closed platforms that threaten their ability to drive search/advertising revenue. If Samsung drives Tizen and happily supports Google's products I'm not sure either cares.

Re: Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

#55
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far as I can tell, those clauses are specifically related to the Android trademark / Google Apps / etc. Creating a full fork (of the publicly available source) as allowed by the Apache license with different name and no direct relation to Android should be just as good as creating Tizen. I guess the sticky point here is the closed-source early access releases that Samsung gets. Google must be threatening access to th…

If Tizen takes off, you can expect Google to drop Samsung's access to early release builds in any event as Google will then try to force customers to use Moto/LG/HTC/etc devices. The HN gods banned me for saying bad things about Google, but I have one word for you: antitrust.

Which part of antitrust law would the government use against Google in this case? Google does not hold a monopoly and they are not price-fixing anything. They may be accused of anticompetitive behavior, but unless Google does something very irrational I don't see that happening.

Re: Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

#56
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure TouchWiz has features, it's the implementation and UI that stinks. I have a friend that always said that "Samsung can't do software" and I thought that was a bit hyperbolic. Samsung is a huge company and just because one parts screws up doesn't mean, well, anything really. But I guess I just had barely used any samsung devices that required software. I can honestly not mention a single piece of samsung software…

I'm not really looking to defend Samsung -- their TVs and blu-ray players have terrible software (though on the gray bar bit, clearly that was an entirely intentional choice. Plasmas do that specifically because otherwise you will very quickly have a center portion of the screen that is dimmer than the outer portion, so the gray balances the wear. While LCD is supposedly immune to this, I once had a set that suffered…

I actually forgot that it probably had to do with a plasma tv, that's true, there is a reason for it.

"You're kind of veering to the point of insulting people"

Not my intention, but I guess it's my way of responding to the gimmicky features Samsung pushes - instead of focusing on usability. Something that I think the galaxy S4 promo videos demonstrate quite clearly. It's great that they try but in the end it ruins the experience (it shouldn't need to, but it does in my opinion).

If Galaxy S4 was a stock android device I'd buy it. With TouchWiz... I just can't...

Re: Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

#57
post #2

I'm not sure how successful these phones will be if they don't have Google's permission to provide Google Play, and I can't imagine Google would give them that.

The Kindle Fire is doing just fine with Amazon Appstore in lieu of Google Play.

The Kindle Fire is not a phone. Not having Google Maps/Gmail/Google Now/Google Chat/etc isn't that big of a deal on your reader or tablet, but it's a lot bigger deal on your phone.

Re: Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

#58
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google added a non-fragmentation clause to their OEM agreement[1] which is meant to prevent anyone from forking it in the way that Amazon has. You can fork it, but you can't make official Android phones anymore if you do. Obviously Samsung wants to continue to sell their Galaxy S phones. Tizen is a hail mary pass. [1] http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/31/google-tightening-control...

Far as I can tell, those clauses are specifically related to the Android trademark / Google Apps / etc. Creating a full fork (of the publicly available source) as allowed by the Apache license with different name and no direct relation to Android should be just as good as creating Tizen. I guess the sticky point here is the closed-source early access releases that Samsung gets. Google must be threatening access to th…

I doubt Tizen will take off. Samsung's software prowess is nowhere near to companies making and capable of making world class/sophisticated OS(or mobile OS). There is a lot of things that goes against Samsung which is in the company's DNA (culturally embedded it) and those are the things that hinder innovation and cutting edge research(esp. from s/w research perspective). (Probably the same things actually help them do great in the numbers game and on factory floor)

And even if it does. Samsung is the one vendor that actually sells Android phones - those millions of phones and I am sure Google gets a cut from it, not to mention ads and other ways of monetization. So, it is unlikely Google is denying them early code access. Other OEMs have failed on one more front - providing upgrades and this is where Samsung beats them all (except Nexus line; last 2 Nexus were from Samsung BTW). HTC makes good phones(better than Samsung IMHO, at least some models) but their users are doomed on upgrades. LG is not even worth mentioning. We have their phones in test lab and almost they all suck. We've yet to see where Moto goes and what it does. I guess Google will try to pull an Apple with Moto(though it's just a guess, I've no solid backing for this argument). Sony just keeps trying to make their devices all the pretties and they end up screwing the overall design and their s/w support is even worse than LG.

Tizen is not fragmenting Android. I also had doubts about it and talked to the guys working in that team and they explained it doesn't. They also said that Tizen Android app experience is nowhere going to be near the native Android experience.

Re: Samsung's future is Tizen, not Android

#60
post #4

While I'm sure Samsung would love to replace Android with Tizen, I doubt they will actually be able to do it. While Apple and Google make it appear easy to create an OS that users enjoy using, the reality is that it is incredibly difficult. Just look at Windows Phone - I'm fairly sure that Microsoft is more able to create a technically superior OS to Samsung, and I think the amount of money Microsoft has poured into…

> The only sensible conclusion I can come to is that making a desirable mobile OS is far more difficult than it appears,

I'd say making a desirable OS is much less difficult than trying to displace two operating systems which, combined, take up more than 95% of the current OS mobile mind share.

Post reply on HN