At CES this week, we sat down in a session with Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha who covered a wide range of topics ranging from the company's newly-announced phones to Webtop and everything in between (although it's currently in its financial quiet period, so we didn't much detail on quarterly performance). One comment in particular stood out: Jha mentioned that the company wants to make fewer phones, bucking a trend most major Android manufacturers have pushed hard in the last couple years.
What's behind the decision? A big motivating factor is Jha's desire to better focus Motorola's marketing dollars. We pressed him on rather obvious examples of what he calls "incremental innovation" — the Droid Bionic and the Droid RAZR, for instance — but Jha defended them, saying the Bionic had been delayed significantly beyond Motorola's original target of mid-2011.
We also talked about OEMs' perennial press to skin the operating system — a trend that looks poised to continue in Android 4.0 — which developed into a full-blown conversation about the conflict between the mythical "stock Android device" and the realities of business between manufacturers like Motorola and carriers. "Verizon and AT&T don't want seven stock ICS devices on their shelves," he said, insisting that he "has to make money" and that there simply isn't a way to profit on a device that isn't differentiated. "The vast majority of the changes we make to the OS are to meet the requirements that carriers have."
We'll have more news from our conversation shortly.

There are 246 Comments. Add yours.
what is that supposed to mean?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 6:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
and why is that preventing them from releasing their flagship 4.0 devices?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 6:52 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
They (the networks) want product differentiation, it’s a reasonable argument, especially as the hardware is often very similar. Although obviously it’s annoying for consumers who want stock, the best we can hope for at the moment is the un-skin option buried in the settings.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Or something to come out of Googorola eventually
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Well, there are the Nexus devices. But in terms of the market as a whole the networks are more powerful than Google, they can kill any phone by not backing it.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:04 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
We’ll see. Can’t imagine they were too happy with the ‘hide carrier bloatware apps’ feature in ICS.
When Google makes the most widely used OS in the smartphone space they can start to call more and more shots and either they will partner with a smaller carrier that is willing to work with them or have bigger plans down the road. Look at what they did with Sprint with the Nexus just recently.
I think Google despises carriers and in a time where WiFi is becoming more and more common place and Google can fire users up about loving ICS styling and not skins AND Google has the money to make magic happen I think the reign of the carriers is going to slowly wane.
Bit of a dream but I wager we will see a dig into carrier control in each OS google releases here on out. I think they will get their eventually, I think they have set it as a goal of sorts.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:09 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Google has no power. Their OS is hopelessly fragmented and has the lowest customer satisfaction ratings.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:19 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
trololololol
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 11:00 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
This basically means that Verizon, AT&T & Motorola are basically Greedy as hell. The Carrier’s aren’t content with taking our money just from coverage, Monthly, Data, and Phone fees but also allow spamware on the phones in order to make $0.50…. That’s f***ing greedy.
We’ll see if Motorola Changes it’s tune as soon as google takes over the reigns :3 Hopeful it will start pushing back against the Carriers as one of the top manufacturers.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 7:46 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah this just shows that the carriers and sanjay have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the community wants.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s right, the BB has the lowest satisfaction ratings. Android is right above them.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:00 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Google will never call the shots. The carriers don’t deal with Google, they deal with OEMs… if OEMs want to sell devices, then they better make them they way the carrier wants to sell them. End of story. The carrier can simply go to another OEM that will make them as requested.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:34 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Google doesn’t despise anyone in this equation, and more over they really don’t care at a fundamental level.
Android is about selling advertising and in order to sell advertising Google needs a massive number of people using the device, which will in turn trigger search results, and broader usage of google’s ad-supported services.
Sure, it’s in their best interest to make the OS as clean and polished as possible, and they’re doing a good job of that with Duarte, but at the end of the day they really just want as many people as possible using it.
If that means forcing a Verizon theme and a bunch of bloatware on a phone in order to move a few hundred thousand units, so be it.. at that level Google isn’t even involved anymore, and frankly they don’t really care to be.
Look no further than Microsoft for an example of how this plays out.. They are the de facto standard in the OS business and the only real way that the OEMs can carve out a decent slice of profit is to pre-load non-OS items onto their products.
It’s not really any different here, except that profit margins are even more razor thin.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t understand how this argument makes sense at all.
If it’s impossible to make a product on devices that don’t differentiate, then how have all these companies sold so many damn Windows laptops?
People want Google to do the software for the most part and they want the phones to be made by the manufacturers. As for differentiation, MAKE THE BEST AND PRETTIEST HARDWARE! Stop avoiding spending money in making a great design by taking the easy way out and changing up the software.
Windows Phones don’t have this problem. I don’t see how this can be the case.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:41 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Firstly those are different products, it may be more likely comparing Apples and Pears rather than Apples and Oranges, but there is a difference. Secondly, there is more price differentiation, laptops have massive ranges, when there aren’t massive ranges (Netbooks) they failed to sell enough to compete.
Finally, there is bloatware on Windows laptops, and has been for years.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
MSFT was sued and nearly broken up for non-removable bloatware. The carriers have too much influence and power in government.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Totally missed my point. The fact of the matter is they said they couldn’t make margins on devices that weren’t different, but laptops sold. And the whole carrier argument breaks down when you look at Windows Phone 7.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 12:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Laptops weren’t subsidized by retailers as mobile phones are by carriers. The carriers pay for and own the phones until your contract is up.
WP7 is only on a handful of devices compared to the dozens of models of Androids. The point from the carrier’s perspective will be, “Why should I pay for 36 phones that all do the same thing taking up space on my shelf?”
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’ll go with the obvious choice and point out that the majority of Windows laptops are not sold by carriers on contract.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:03 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
That, and uninstalling bloatware is relatively simple and doesn’t void your warranty.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:05 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You are 100% correct.
We are spoiled by these contracts.
Admittedly, these gadgets might be out of most peoples’ price range without the contract discounts, but it hides the real cost, and gives undue power to the awful carriers.
At the risk of being all “let them eat cake”, I think that more people (especially the ones that can afford it) need to insist on unlocked phones that they can take and activate on the carrier of their choice.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 1:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But that’s not my point, my point is the claim that they cant profit on a product that doesn’t differentiate in software. And I’m saying that’s wrong. Windows was successful without “enhancements” to the software.
And again. What about Windows Phone 7? No bloat, no source code, no modifications, no skins, yet, still in carriers stores.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 12:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Microsoft pays the carrier money to sell thier phones. Carrier will sell an Android phone if it’s unique to them, they don’t want people comparing phones and plans separately; they want people to pay whatever is needed to get the phone they want. AT&T for example doesn’t want to advertise a phone that is also available on other carriers, it’s a waste of advertising dollars.
iPhone is the exception because that is what te average consumer wants, and Apple refuse to to let a carrier sell it unless they meet all of Apple’s strict guidelines and don’t put thier logos and junk on it.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:21 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Product differentiation is everything.
With PCs it’s basically impossible to differentiate with software because Windows can’t be skinned and modified by an OEM like Android can. Android is free, Windows is licensed and there are strict rules to follow. The best OEMs can do with software is add their own. Differentiation with PCs is all in the hardware specs, design and price.
Smart phones are different in that they’re sold by carriers and they make the rules. Pleasing the carrier is everything. In reality, the carrier is the OEM’s primary customer. Not you. Microsoft is pleasing the carriers by paying them straight cash. Apple doesn’t need to please the carriers because the consumer demand for iPhone strong enough.
Because so many OEMs are using Android, and Android can be modified and messed with (unlike Windows) then the OEMs and carriers are only happy to in order to “add value” and differentiate the products from each other.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Windows was successful for Microsoft. Hardware makers have often struggled with thin profit. IBM, Compaq, DEC, etc, have quit the market and some of the largest players such as HP, Dell, Acer, etc. are struggling. This is exactly what phone makers and carriers want to avoid – to become low margin vehicle for Google’s business.
WP7 is in carrers stores but they don’t get big support from carriers. That probably has something to do with carriers not wanting to push something they cannot control.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Great point about the tons of windows laptops (and desktop pc’s for that matter). PC manufacturers have been selling the same OS on different hardware for years and years.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
1. Carriers subsidize android phones, windows laptops are not subsidized.
2. “Windows Phones don’t have this problem”. Well, look where Windows Phone stands now.
Posted on Jan 12, 2012 | 7:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s not that reasonable. Often times, you can’t even find ONE stock Android device across all 4 carriers. Verizon sure as hell didn’t have a high end device, until they FINALLY released the GN. Which, I should mention, sold like gangbusters online. I think Verizon could easily make room for just 2 or even 3 pure stock devices, which they do NOT currently have, and haven’t had, for quite a long time. I think even in the days of the Droid 1, that was the only high-end (for it’s time) stock Android device. And it sold really well! And was well loved (still is).
They are kind of bs’ing us.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:21 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
First sentence edit: One high-end stock Android device.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Until people in USA grow out of buying their phones subsidized from stupid carriers OEMs and OS developers should continue to bow down before carriers and do what they want them.
I hear from friends that in countries like India carriers are like muppets, OEMs and OS Developers can directly sell phones unlocked (of course unsubsidized) as they like.
Google tried to sell their nexus phones bypassing the carriers but did not succeed outside convincing geeks and devs to shell out the huge price tag. I would totally love to buy my phones that way and not sign my life to carriers!!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:23 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
If I’m not going to leave my carrier for 18 months, why wouldn’t I let them pay for $300-$400 of the device cost? For example I just bought a Galaxy Nexus on contract, why would I buy it off contract? Even if I left, where will I go? It’s not like I have an option for LTE service.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s just how people’s mindset works when they’ve never had to deal with that sort’ve issue. They’re in their own little bubble. I don’t understand buying them off contract. That whole subject is irrelevant to this article anyway.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:37 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No, I have friends who buy old used phones off contract for next to nothing. I’ve seen it, and in some instances I “get it”. But buying a brand new LTE phone off contract would be the dumbest thing you could possible do in the US.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:39 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That’s an entirely different issue, and when you’re talking about that sort’ve situation, it does make sense to buy a cheap unlocked, or refurbed phone.
To waltz into a Verizon store and drop $600-700 on an off-contract device makes no sense at all. You can ONLY use it with Verizon and nobody else, and that’s what people like neilspartacus don’t understand.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:40 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It’s not like in the US we have an option really. You’re on AT&T or you’re on Verizon. If you’re on AT&T you have a CDMA/LTE phone if you’re on AT&T you have a GSM phone. Why not let the carrier subsidize the phone, it’s not like you’re going to switch. Never made sense to me, but maybe I’m missing something?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Because the phone isn’t free. Presumably they set your rate plan so they get that money back over the term of the contract.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:23 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
But to buy a phone off contract you don’t pay less in monthly fees. So you’re paying the carrier back a phone subsidy recovery fee even when you do not take the subsity an buy off-contract.
Essentially you’re just losing out on $200 per year if you don’t take the subsity.
Now if you paid $15 per month less when out of contract, that’s be a different story.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 1:35 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually I’ve found out that.T-mobile, at least, has prepaid plans with data that will run $20-$30 cheaper than contract plans if you are willing to buy a phone unsubsidized or unlocked. But yeah, I think what you’re saying is pretty much true for all the other networks.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
In the UK you pay less than half the cost of a contract that comes with a subsidised phone if you get a SIM only contract. I can’t see how the US carriers can possibly justify doing anything different.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Some phones will work on all carriers (eg iPhone 4S) but you can bet that the carriers aren’t happy about it. They want the customer locked into thier network by the choice of phone, the custer to be constantly reminded of the branding eg “This is my Verizon Droid phone” not “This is my Google Android phone” because they want repeat business.
“My contract is up, what’s the new Verizon Droid phone?” "Here you are sir, it’s a really popular model. " “I’ll take it, and sign my life away for another two years thanks”.
The last thing carriers want is a customer who can buy the same thing on all carriers, and is shopping around for the cheapest data plan.
I’ve heard speculation that Apple tried to interest Verizon in the 1st generation iPhone, before it was finished, but Verizon refused to bend to Apple’s will with an unbranded device with unlimited data and no Verizon customization. Who knows if there is any truth to this or not though there is no proof.
The problem now, is if Motorola says:
“Verizon, we’re not selling you any more customized phones, and that’s final”
Verizon says:
“Fine, we’re selling more Samsungs anyway and always have LG, Sony Ericson, etc. Goodbye.”
And this goes for all phone manufacturers selling Android phones, they’re all competing to sell their product to the carrier. Carrier can say “We’d be more interested in selling your phkne if there was no tethering because it overloads the network. And it’s a bit expensive, make it cheaper, use a worse camera or something.”
It’s damn horrible for us.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:37 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
This is only true because there are no LTE plans in the US other than AT&T’s and Verizon’s contract plans, and neither carrier offers discounted pricing for customers who don’t buy a subsidized phone.
Other than LTE, though, it’s far from true: I paid $650 for my unlocked iPhone 4S, and pay $53.50/month on T-Mobile for unlimited voice, text, and 2G data including all taxes. The cheapest possible AT&T individual plan is $40 + 15 + 12 or so for taxes and fees last time I saw a bill around here (Indiana), so that comes out to $535 plus whatever “activation fees” AT&T is charging this week for the carrier locked, subsidized AT&T iPhone 4S, assuming I never send and receive a text message, never use more than the 450 minute allocation, and never exceed the 200MB data cap.
In practice, I fairly consistently use 100–200 text messages a month and 1500+ “peak” minutes a month, so I’d be paying $117 for an AT&T plan and thus over $1,700 for a “$199” iPhone (possibly a great deal more, if I forget to either cancel service or purchase another subsidized device immediately after month 24), in exchange for somewhat faster data service that I rarely use for anything more bandwidth-intensive than Siri.
Pricing from Sprint and Verizon isn’t much better.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 6:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What if the carrier gave you $300-400 off your service cost instead?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:22 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well in France, a new network operator just launched, it’s called “free” incidentally and they made a very cheap 19.99 euros unlimited calls on all mobile phone networks, unlimited sms and 3GB data plan on 3G/4G network on a leave-whenever-you-want basis (no fixed contract time). They sell their phones separately at market price unlocked and unbranded that you can pay over 12/24/36 months for no extra charge.
I think it’s a fairly good compromise when you think that the same plan would cost you about 60 euros on other carriers on a 24 month contract but you pay the phone 100 euros instead of 500 euros.
That way the hardware you choose to buy is yours and is separated from your much much cheaper and no strings attached mobile plan.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Outside the US we have such things as one month rolling contracts, and there’s little distinction these days between contract and pay as you go.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well when GSM networks have the coverage like CDMA and similarity between frequencies that they do in say, the U.K.
I’m sure it’d be a widespread adoption. Fact is nobody with a GSM network here in the states can cover everyone like can be done in much smaller countries.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
GSM standard was mandadted by law. That’s why carriers in EU are interoperable. You couldn’t legally build a cell network that was proprietary. No such law ever came to exist here for bettor or for worse.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 1:38 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Good point.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:40 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
1st sentence not gonna happen. You might as well ask Americans to stop buying cheap products from Walmart because their prices are too cheap.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not sure you really understand the difference between the US market and wireless infrastructure and Europe’s. We don’t have the same carrier options that Europeans do. We have AT&T or Verizon. Sprint and T-Mobile are largely irrelevant. And AT&T and Verizon have incompatible networks (CDMA/LTE vs GSM)
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:46 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sprint and T-Mobile have a combined market share of something like 30%. Not big at all, but not irrelevant.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you bring your own phone you pay the same “subsidized” price. As a result there’s no incentive to not get the subsidized phone. This is illegal usury, but the carries have all the political power.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:22 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Well, I’m going to go ahead and call bullshit on it being a reasonable argument.
What difference are they making with not having too many stock Android devices sitting on shelves, when instead, Verizon is soon to have not one, not two, but 5 GingerBlue Motorola devices sitting on their shelves. Droid 3, Droid Bionic, Droid RAZR, Droid RAZR MAXX, Droid 4. Granted some of those are supposed to be on their EOL, but you can also take into consideration the three different color choices of the original Droid RAZR. Saying original as if it were that long ago that it came out.
Stock Android, provides a cleaner, more user-friendly experience. OEM Bloat doesn’t provide differentiation of any kind other than from other OEMs. I think Sanjay has been smoking rocks.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, that’s basically just saying that you don’t care about OEM software differentiation. The carriers clearly do, and if that’s a concern, then it’s plain to see that, say, 5 Motoblur devices and 5 Touchwiz devices is a preferable situation to ten stock devices.
I’d also note that I haven’t seen any evidence that consumers generally (not tech nerds) have any issue with skins at all. My anecdotal experience is that people generally really like the features provided by skins and don’t know and couldn’t care less what stock Android is.
It is interesting that stock Aneroid has, aside from the Nexus line, sort of come to denote a lower quality of device, in things like the Optimus series.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
When there is only one product on the shelf that is a stock android interface, and every other Android phone is running Blur or Wiz or Sense, then the stock android device IS the differentiator. All the others are more of the same.
If one manufacturer picked to be the stock Android experience manufacturer, they would continue to be different from the others, but different in the way that Google intends.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:06 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If carriers are the reason, why not provide the option to disable non-stock features?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It seems reasonable, but maybe they should weigh in the consumers thoughts. Besides, it’s not like AT&T is offering the only true google stock device of the generation. I mean obviously the Galaxy Nexus is one of the better known, more common android devices considering its the face of android for the next year. Wouldn’t it be in AT&T’s best interest to provide the same support for android as it is with iOS and WP7? And that would mean giving customers the ONE device that is truly android.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The consumer’s thoughts buying a phone amount to:
“This phone is old. Battery doesn’t last long anymore. My contract is up. I’m going to the phone store.”
“Hi, I want a new phone.”
“Here, this is our Verizon model X. It is very popular now.”
“A friend said I should get an iPhone, what are they like?”
“This is better, it can do more.”
“Ok I’ll take it.”
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:48 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I think it’s telling that the best Jha can come up with is “well, I need to make money”.
It’s not a good sign if the only reason they’re developing motoblur is because the carriers are demanding differentiation. If you want to try to skin a device, it’s got to be because you think you can improve the UI and provide a better experience for the customer – not because your distributor doesn’t want to go to school wearing the same sneakers as all the other kids.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I get the differentiation argument but how would it hurt their differentiation if they have a stock ICS model, even just one? I mean heck, considering they release device after device with the same crappy motoblur skin, I’d think that ICS would be a big differentiation factor.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 7:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
wouldn’t having a couple stock Android devices in their lineup increase differentiation because they don’t really offer that option outside of the Nexus phones?
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 7:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
….read the article.
Carriers can’t make money, simple as that.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But if you only have one stock device among tons that are skinned…then you, by default with the default, have differentiation.
This argument only becomes valid once EVERYONE is putting out a glut of stock phones. And they’re not…except for Windows Phone 7. And yet the carriers seem mostly OK with all Windows Phone 7 phones having the same UI.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:04 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
You’d have differentiation that pushes Google’s brand, not the carriers brand. The carrier doesn’t want that.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:51 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Go back to Engadget, and sprint for that matter…
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It means I’m getting a Windows Phone 8 device
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It means that Motorola hasn’t figured out that NOBODY wants MotoBlur…. You would think they could look at sales figures and put 2 and 2 together…
I SERIOUSLY hope Google takes over their product design when the merger is complete.. Sanjay needs a nice and loooong vacation..
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Motorola sells to carriers, not to consumers. He “wants to make money” by satisfying carrier requirements for differentiated phones.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:25 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Got it in one. Motorola Mobility’s (and Samsung’s, HTC’s, Sony
Ericsson‘s, etc.) customers for cell phones are the carriers, not the end users (consumers). Motorola thus has very little choice in bowing to a carrier’s desire to differentiate its phone portfolio from that of rival carriers, because if they don’t then another vendor will.For example, six years ago Verizon had a 1200+ page document that excruciatingly detailed every aspect of the user interface a “feature” phone would present to the consumer. Verizon didn’t care what OS ran on the phone hardware, but if it didn’t support Qualcomm’s BREW platform (for Verizon’s app and music/ringtone stores) or conform to that user interface document, Verizon wouldn’t buy the phone — period.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 2:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It means: “Don’t blame me! He started it!”
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 7:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Is’s obvious. He means that people buy Motorolas, not because of Android, but because motoblur is so cool!!!! No…wait.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Basically it means that they cant make as much money if Android phones arent customized.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 6:53 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
“The vast majority of the changes we make to the OS are to meet the requirements that carriers have.”
Maybe they have to remember that customers are the ones who need improvements, not carriers for more uninstallable apps
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 6:55 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They sell to Carriers, not to consumers remember
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
And carriers only buy them if there is consumer demand so ……………………………….
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
People don’t have any alternatives to what carriers provide.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:26 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Maybe you should remember that their customers are carriers. Motorola sells their devices to carrier and carrier in turn sells it to you.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Until Apple changed that, and is winning on that front. Too bad Google struck a deal with Verizon. Carriers should just be service providers, IMHO.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:04 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
But then how will you get phones for $0 :/
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But then how will you get phones for
$0$200-$300 :/Fixed.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:24 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
How about instead of clamoring like zombies for mythical free phones, we move to a model where we could, say, sign a contract with a carrier wherein they knock $10 off the service price per month if we agree to stay with them for 2 years?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 10:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Like I say, carriers should be worrying about the service they provide…not the hardware they can offer.
The business was screwed up from the start and Apple took a huge leap to correct how flawed it is.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is one of the few companies who really looks out for the rights of the end user and doesn’t bow down to middle men. But they might be shooting themselves in the foot; imagine if Verizon sold a customized branded iPhone 4VS, unique to Verizon, with Verizon exclusive features, better than standard iPhone 4S on other carriers. The 4VS is the best version! Etc… Well, Verizon would happily push that phone over whatever Android phones, it would be an easy sell. Apple is no doubt selling less phones because they refuse to differentiate them and tailor the device to the carrier.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:58 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
It should be much more than $10, if you compare the European pricing model.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well yeah thats the dream. For the US to be more the Europe. Hopefully in the next 5 to 10 years we’ll start seeing some movement that direction. But the carriers will fight it as much as possible.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
like* Europe
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Carriers sell all the phones in Europe as well you know.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, carriers sell most of the phones in Europe. Granted, the purchase your phone from carrier with contract is still the overwhelmingly popular option, but it’s becoming increasingly popular to either buy your own device, or just keep it, and use the carrier as well, a carrier.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:17 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If you bring your own device or buy it outright you save much more money on your monthly fees.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Carrier exclusives are pretty much a thing of the past here though.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But then upstaged them with a deal with Sprint. Google aren’t stupid, and I don’t think they appreciate being manhandled by a bunch of non-innovating carriers. I’d say it grinds their gears and they fully intend to replace them in the future.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Sure — all Google has to do is buy spectrum in all the markets the major carriers operate in. Since it failed to actually buy any during the 700MHz band auction a few years ago, that now means literally buying out one of said carriers. Unfortunately, the $42.56B cash Google has on hand (prior to its MMI purchase going through) isn’t going to be enough, e.g., Verizon’s market cap is currently $110.24B.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 2:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you joking? Google doesn’t care. What has Google fought against with Android?
1. Killing net neutrality.
2. Making sure Motorola used their mapping solution instead of Skyhook.
3. Making sure that carrier did not make side deals with MS to use Bing search on Android phones.
What do these have in common? They all interfere with Google’s income. Google couldn’t give a damn about your user experience so long as you keep buying Android phones.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 8:34 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
A phone that no end user wants doesn’t benefit either of them. OEMs sell to us, not carriers. If we don’t want it, that carriers aren’t going to want it.
I don’t think Android skins are the biggest issue here. They make the phones simpler to use for end users that are new to smartphones. That is good for both OEMs and carriers. The bigger issue is the locked bootloaders that keep the ever expanding power user/hacker population from wanting their devices.
Produce quality phones, put your skins on them but leave the bootloaders unlocked and everyone would win. Hell, why you’re at it why not innovate on the hardware now and then.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The reason the carriers fight to have the OEMs lock the bootloaders is of course what everything boils down to…Money. With an unlocked bootloader people can perm-root their devices, and thus uninstall the carrier installed apps (most of which require paying some subscription for it to work). The majority of people don’t realize that there are free apps out there that do the same or better than the carrier apps. The other thing with rooting the device is that there are tethering apps that you can then use, without the carrier knowing that you are tethering. The carrier doesn’t want people to have free tethering since that is a service that they require their customers to pay an extra $20-$30 a month for. If you need any more convincing, then just look at how much advertising time VZW gave the Galaxy Nexus vs. the other top tier phones they offered. Alot of people never had even heard of the Nexus, even after it was already in the stores and availible for sale. But you could hardly open up any tech site without being hit with ads for the Razr or the Rezound, and there were TV ads for a at least a month before each had hit the stores.
Posted on Jan 12, 2012 | 5:58 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, but if they don’t make those changes then the carriers won’t buy any of their phones so then they would have to sell then strait to the consumer unsubsidized, which has failed for Nokia and google in the past. The carriers are the problem, not the manufacturers.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:08 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And they want seven MotoBlur devices on their shelves? XD
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 6:55 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No, they want some Motoblur, some Sense, some Touchwiz.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=phoneFirst&action=viewPhoneOverviewByDevice&deviceCategoryId=1
Six Motoblur phones on Verizon’s website…
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Along with Sense and Touchwiz yes? That’s differentiation.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:49 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Kind of like how Dell and HP customize Windows so they can sell laptops. Heyyy … wait a minute!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
15 skinned phones and only one pure ICS. This makes no sense, these guys are full of poop.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Example # 1,726 that the carriers are the real consumers of Android. As long as Google keeps the Nexus program alive, I can live with skins.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 6:57 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Yeah, it’s perfectly fine for manufacturers to continue screwing customers. So long as the geeks have access to their lone annual Nexus device, who cares what happens to the average consumer.
Derp.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:25 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
As Jha said, the carriers are the customer! I think Android’s customers (carriers) are quite satisfied with the status quo. And the average consumer buys DROIDS, EVOs, and Galaxys. I would love to see a world where the average consumer has a choice between multiple stock Android devices, but unless the Galaxy Nexus does iPhone numbers, it ain’t gonna happen. Sadly.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:31 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If you want a Nexus, you either have to fork over $500+ or be on a specific carrier, which is Verizon this time around. I wouldn’t complain if the Nexus was on all carriers, but it’s not, and each of the carriers keep peddling phones with such over-the-top skins that it takes 6 months to get the latest version of the OS!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Fair point. Skins would be a little easier to accept if the Nexus were released on each network simultaneously. Everyone who wants a Nexus (in the US) can’t just buy a Nexus because Verizon made Google an offer it couldn’t refuse. When the Nexus becomes more widely available in the US, we need to show the carriers that we want stock Android by spending our money on the Nexus.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I imagine the numbers sold are too small to make it worth producing a version for each of your incompatible networks, sadly.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except the international GSM version of the Galaxy Nexus is already fully compatible with both T-Mobile and AT&T, some few phones have been able to do (because carriers don’t want them, not a limitation of technology).
Posted on Jan 12, 2012 | 10:26 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Thankfully, the nexus is coming to sprint and you can use the GSM version on AT&T and T-mobile. Tho unless something changed since I last checked they aren’t subsidized…
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 12:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe not, but their customers sure as hell do!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 6:57 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Verizon and AT&T ARE Motorola’s customers.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:00 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
Right – there is a serious disconnect here about who the “customer” really is. It’s the people who end up using your devices, not the channels you sell through. This is, apparently and sadly, a common misconception from a lot of businesses, and indicates they may need some fresh marketing perspective.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is why windows phone is like how it is, they changed focus.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Google sacraficed control for rapid market penetration. It was the only way they could upstage the iPhone. They fully intend on taking that back though. ICS is a major step to trying to eliminate carrier bloatware and skins. I know the feature isn’t there yet but they sure as hell are putting the foundations in place.
If they had done the windows phone approach they would never have got any where. Google, makes phones? Arent they a search company?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:14 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I hope you are right about them taking back control…I see the beginnings of it in ICS, but then I see TouchWiz and Sense for Android 4.0 news…
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google has no power because they don’t own the OS. How many ICS phones are out there? One?
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 8:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And all the manufacturers are reaping the benefits. Go MARKET SHARE! Have you noticed your favorite smartphone makers aren’t seeing the profit they used to by having to dump out all these differentiated models? But you go on believing that the consumer demands all these bells and whistles that are going off in these differentiated phones. Maybe "you", the person reading tech magazines do, but the average consumer doesn’t care about them. But hey, even your newest Android phone might not be able to be upgraded to the new OS when it comes out. That’s a cool feature some of the makers like Samsung have added.
I am impressed with your inside knowledge of the inner workings of Google though. Or are you Schmidty?
Posted on Jan 12, 2012 | 1:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s exactly the problem! :-)
I was referring to Verizon’s & AT&T’s customers’, i.e. the end users. The phone companies should be fighting for the end user, but it seems like they’re forcing themselves in between the hardware manufacturers and the end users and, well, just getting in the way.
Posted on Jan 17, 2012 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Clearly, they want seven Android phones filled with software that inevitably lead to frustrating tech support calls. I don’t see the difference.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
differentiate in your hardware. has anyone ever come into the store saying, I want motoblur android only? i doubt it. People are buying the phone because it has android and it’s in a form factor they want with the specs they want.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 6:59 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
There are only so many gimmicks one can engineer on the hardware side. The modern smartphone is flat with a glass surface. Not a lot of wiggle room. Anything that deviates from it usually ends up being a flop. See Kyocera Echo, Playstation Phone, etc.
Stock Android doesn’t serve any of these manufacturers.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That doesn’t stop the OEMs from advertising their hardware differences, as minor as you may view them. Even before smartphones, there was something that marketing pushed. In the age of independent hardware/software reviews and the hawk like eye of the internet … well… they need to adapt or die. I loved the D1, but I didn’t buy a RAZR strictly because of the locked bootloaders and buggery of Moto in general lately.
And I’ll be clear, I would’ve taken any of VZW’s top three (GN, RAZR, Rezound). I actually ended up with the Rezound, which I think Mr. Ziegler was way too harsh on in his review.
Of course, I temp rooted it (literally plugged it in my comp, opened a premade file from xda, chose option temp root, and voila it was done). And then I desensed it (with that very same tool). So…
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nokia differentiates its products in a very good way, design. Almost everyone WANTS the Lumia 900 despite running an OS that isn’t widely used by tech nerds because of its great design and engineering.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:40 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
This reply was meant for Aix.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:41 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
lol people don’t even know what motoblur is :p
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, when moto says they want skins what they mean is moto wants skins and in return carriers want bloatware. So they put on both. This guy isn’t fooling anyone. Moto wants motoblur because in their fantasy world people actually want some weird additional functionality that they have spent millions working on. Nobody really wants that of course but they think they do.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ye nobody wants it really, but when they start to add these things in; once a consumer buys one, they want that again. That’s how they’re trying to build loyalty in the mass market.
Only people with a keen interest in technology will appreciate build quality and fast innovation and become loyal to a brand for that.
The “regular consumer” doesn’t care about the things mentioned in the previous sentence, and that’s why carriers and OEMS’s try to create identity and loyalty in their additional software.
It’s unfortunate, but seems to be the way OEM’s and carriers are developing their brand strategy and that won’t change based on the early adopters opinions. It’s the scalability of the mass market that matters.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Which is why I don’t want yours. I’ll keep my Windows Phone thank you.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:00 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Must be why they are selling so well.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:07 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Are you f***ing kidding me? Why don’t you release ONE stock product for Verizon/AT&T and see how that sells? You can customize the hell out of the other phones, but release one high-end stock Android device and give the consumer that choice.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:00 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They did, the Galaxy Nexus, and it’s amaaaazing.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:27 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I would hope that since Android is mature enough, they could release non-Nexus devices stock. And the Galaxy Nexus is awesome.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I had a Galaxy Nexus for a day and returned it. Laggy with most live wallpapers and that landscape keyboard bug is unacceptable. ICS looks great but the GN was unimpressive.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I suspect it’s partly the slow sales of Nexus phones that are discouraging makers from going stock. Judging from the publicly available data, all of Nexus phones, even the Galaxy Nexus, have been fairly slow sellers in comparison to their internet hype. If Nexus phones sold better, the situation would’ve been different.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, but here’s the thing – there is only ONE to two stock Android device on each carrier right now (the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus S). By default, if you put out a stock Android device right now, you ARE differentiating from the competition…because no one else is doing it!
I call shenanigans on these claims. It would cost them zero dollars to differentiate with a stock Android device.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And zero dollars is what they’d earn if the carriers won’t buy it.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 2:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They can differentiate themselves by having stock phones. I mean to everyone else it would look like a skin
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
My thoughts exactly.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The default Android, for all its upsides, have been unquestionably inferior in prettiness to regular consumers’ eyes up until ICS.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I only buy stock android devices and I advise all friends and family to do the same.
So I won’t buy a Motorola device anytime soon.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So you’ve bought unlocked, unsubsidized phones directly from Motorola Mobility to date, then?
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 2:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, the OG Droid was the last from Moto. While at least HTC has unlocked most of their phones now. My Rezound is a very happy phone.
Posted on Jan 12, 2012 | 6:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If no one wants stock then why is everyone always lookin’ to root their phone for Cyanogenmod? Explain that Motorola!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not everyone. Just geeks.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:58 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
‘Everyone’? By Everyone do you mean a very small percentage of owners? (growing smaller by the day)
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:26 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Cyanogen just reported 1 million users
I suppose that’s EVERYONE?
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
this is lame…
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Bah! These damn American carriers are the worst! ICS without the bloat please!!!!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Here’s an idea… Allow users to choose between stock Android and Carrier-modded Android for their devices or UNLOCK YOUR BOOTLOADERS!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:04 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I want a killswitch on the skins. I could then in theory be safe with buying Android superphones over a Nexus phone
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The manufacturers have to meet with the carrier RFP for products, So it´s partly true, they need to add to the stock android what the carrier “needs”, for targeting distinct audiences
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Carriers and OEMs are stuck on an old feature phone mindset.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:20 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Great, keep make arbitrarily “different” nonsense, and we’ll keep buying Nexuses for the pure Android experience.
Dolt.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Methinks that Page and Brin are gonna have a word with Jha once the takeover goes through. MMI’s profit warning has brought down GOOG 5% over the last two days. Shareholder’s aren’t happy now, and aren’t going to be happy if Motorola keeps up with this skinning BS.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So have one stock and 30 skinned devices? I understand thwy need to differentiate but having morw than one stock expierence would be better and be different….i think each year google should have htc moto and samsung put out one stock phone on each carrier problem solved
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:09 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yep. I like the way you’re thinking! Why not have each OEM release one “Nexus” per year in a staggered fashion? For example, Samsung in Q1, HTC in Q2, Motorola in Q3, Sony in Q4, and so on. That way carriers can still have their skins, and end users can choose between more than one Nexus phone per year. Everyone wins, right?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:17 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Why is it acceptable to carriers that all Windows Phones are ‘stock’ and not Android then?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is a great question relative to Jha’s answer.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:46 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What windows phone? None on verizon i see
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:57 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Htc Trophy says hi.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh i dont notice low end phones
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:29 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Windows Phones are not selling > Can you see his point now ?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You think it’s because customers aren’t interested or because the Verizon salesman directs you to the Android phones because they get a commission for selling them due to their bloat ware. It’s just like Windows PCs, few people want the pre-installed crap on there but OEMs get paid big bucks to have Norton Anti-Virus and McAfee pre-installed.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t see how this is complicated for the lot of you. There is one stock device on Verizon and at&t and it’s called the Nexus. Want stock, get the Nexus. Want skinned, get a Motorola or HTC. Arguably, Motorola is one of the more enterprise friendly Android devices on VZW. A stock Nexus might not be. At the end of the day, the casual consumer doesn’t care if it’s skinned or not. The day I bought my GN, there must have been 5 people waiting to buy the RAZR while I was the only one getting the stock Android device. Consumers like differentiation even if the nerds don’t.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:10 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Carriers and phone manufacturers are shooting themselves in the foot. Does anyone think the carriers make the smartphones better with their differentiating features? These carriers deal with customers everyday and they still don’t get it. No wonder Apple does so well. Customers can go into an Apple store, pick a phone, a color and capacity and all they need is a calling plan. Most users don’t care about specs, crapware carrier apps. Android is open. Open to being compromised whenever possible.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Carrier investment is why Android is winning. Carriers aren’t going to mess around when they are having record quarters with Android at the helm. It makes no sense for them to change what is working.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:11 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I understand what he’s saying. You need a variety of packaging that appeals to different people.
It was the original Dream of Android. Give out the base code and let manufacturers do what they will with it. And it sort of made sense in the early days when people didn’t understand Android…
But that dream has gotten scrambled by the breakneck speed of advancement and competition of the Mobile Market. The old world of buying a phone which then remains unchanged for it’s lifetime is gone.
Anyway, I hope Moto has learned the lesson that Sony learned. You need your own “look”, sure, but keep it light and easily updated.
And I wish Google could solve the Quick Update of Everyone problem.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is absolutely wrong. Apple does a very good job selling devices without this type of differentiation. But if they want to shoot themselves in the foot by not releasing a first class product without bloat, it’s on them.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:14 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t think it’s wrong. Apple only has one device, and amazing brand identity and loyalty.
On the otherhand, Android has several OEM’s making phones that are so similar that there needs to be differentiation.
If each OEM puts out phones with extremely similar hardware and the exact same software then that doesn’t create differentiation.
It’s the differentiation that carriers and OEM’s want, particularly where they’re quite poor in generating brand loyalty through design efforts like Apple.
Instead of loyalty being pro-offered by consumers; OEM’s try to lock consumers into services with those uniquely offered service.
I know to us that is frustrating because we take a keen interest, but the “mass market” doesn’t. That’s especially true as every person on the street (parents, grandparents and children too young to understand the technology behind the phones) wants a smartphone because it’s the new thing.
In an ideal world you’re right and I want what you want, but we don’t live in an ideal world.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
When in reality no one cares about their UI customizations and buy purely on hardware. It’s pretty ironic that the differentiation is on the part where they think they can’t (hardware) and isn’t on the part where they think they can (software).
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
We don’t care, but an educated guess is that commenters on the verge have a keen interest, so we’re skewed in terms of “market perception”.
What I mean is that the mass market, who aren’t as well informed, will buy a phone for reasons different to hardware capabilities.
So what I feel happens is that the regular consumer buys a phone and because of that customisation by the OEM, they will recognise those same customisations when buying their next phone.
The customisations are there to give identity so that consumers recognise it.
Vanilla Android doesn’t give differentiation, so carriers and OEM’s don’t want it.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:38 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I absolutely see your point, but it is based on an assumption. Two actually, 1) that people like the UI customizations of their phones, and they 2) based their purchases off those supposedly positive experiences. I’d like to see some market research that backs that up.
For example, how many people buy a Motorola android device, and then 18 months later, buy another Motorola device, and do so specifically because they liked the UI customizationz?
Judging by the dramatic swings in Android manufacturer marketshare (just look at the HTC to Samsung swing in the last 12 months) I highly doubt that those customizations have done a great job in retaining loyal users from device to device.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ha ye, I absolutely agree. The OEM’s and carriers think they add value and I was just outlining the reason; the actual experience is probably far off what they think they are giving! I can’t see how people using motoblur actually say “this gives me so much more”.
I suppose that’s the whole thing of consumers voting with their wallets. So if OEM’s don’t get the sales, they should figure out what they can do that actually adds value and improves the UX for a customer.
What I’d love to do is put the “general consumer” in a room with stock, sense, touchwiz and the other few overlays that exist and see what they prefer.
The only problem there is that if stock comes out on top, then what do the OEM’s do!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
and therein lies the rub…
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And this just goes on to further highlight the greatest thing about the iPhone.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:22 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Solution: Two update streams.
The first (the default) being a skinned version of Android with infrequent updates. The second being non-skinned Android that can be officially flashed using a tool from the OEM, and gets updates quicker.
I think the first manufacturer to do this and keep updates coming quick for the stock stream is onto a winner among tech enthusiasts.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not only do I disagree with him, but he’s also very rude and dismissive of end-users. Make a great phone, market it directly to consumers and the carriers will beg you to let them carry it. When you make 5 versions of the same phone it’s not surprising you have to let carriers install bloatware for shelf space. They have to park it next to the other 4 identical phones they’re hawking from you. Android handset manufacturers need to realize you don’t need to sell half a dozen nearly identical smartphones.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:30 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
God I so agree. I hate these people! This is the major thing that makes me mad about Android….
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
None of this makes sense to me. First off, there are like ZERO stock Android devices besides a Nexus. What the F is he talking about? Secondly, how are 3 or 4 Skinned devices of THE SAME HORRIBLE SKIN somehow better than stock ICS? How about these idiots give us real choice. Put out 2-3 phones per year, and go ahead and put your shitty skin on 1-2 of them, to differentiate from the other OEMS, and then put stock ICS on at least one of them for so many people who want that!!! These guys are clueless assholes.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just wanted to post and say I returned a Droid RAZR that I tried for 30 days from Verizon and bought a Galaxy Nexus. Which I will be keeping, because stock ICS is a thousand times better than MOTOBLUR.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:31 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m not interested in what carriers want.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:35 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I’m going to get flamed for this, but I think in some ways moto’s skin is better than stock Gingerbread. Moto allows for clearing individual notifications and some other things (that I can’t think of). I am a Droid X owner who has rooted since day 1 of root and flashed every rom (Moto based, AOSP based, ICS) under the sun. I recently soft bricked and decided to try running the standard motorola gingerbread rom.
It’s pretty good. Battery life is better, UI is fairly cohesive (although ugly imo), and performance is smooth. Now, this wasn’t always the case, as the 2.1/2.2 motorola skins were much worse and slower. I think they have done a lot of work to lighten them up, and agree with skins as differentiators. It doesn’t bother most people. If it bothers you, root and flash to your heart’s content.
ramble ramble ramble
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
you know it’s funny but I found some of Sense UI ‘enhancements’ to be nice too. I’ve got the original EVO, and I’m rooted, but not because of sense. I rooted because sense was slow and bogged down my phone. If I could have had the same batter life I have now with sense, I may have never loaded CM7. Who knows…
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yes, sense also, has gotten better in the past year. It’s not that they aren’t trying. We will never get the choice, I just hope OEMs start bundling restore tools for people that don’t know how to read on XDA…
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wish they would just make a phone for nerds and not the masses. I know that makes zero sense as a financial model, but it would be so kick ass if I could just get top of line hardware with stock android (although I guess maybe that’s the nexus)…
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not all phones have a root/flash method and/or stable ROM yet. Point is, why do they ALL have to be skinned? Why can’t Moto and HTC give us a nice premium ICS phone, pure google? You can’t tell me there isn’t a market for it. They release SO MANY phones per year each, not even one can just be sans skin? Dammit, I hate these first world problems!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Another case of carriers wanting to control everything. We want dumb tubes damnit!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:35 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Jha’s comment sounds of defeat almost. Carriers don’t want it? I don’t recall Steve Jobs giving in to carriers like he is regarding Moto Android devices. If they want differentiation, give consumers stock Ice Cream sandwich, no one else.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
unfortunately in the cell phone world Apple still pulls more weight than google, so Jobs didn’t have to give in. I think part of the reason Android has been so successful is because they allow this “differentiation”.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well I wonder how much of the differentiation succeess comes from the skins and how much from the hardware. At the end of the day I don’t have a problem with all the skins. What makes me sad is that there are nearly zero options for a nice premium pure non skinned Android like with ICS. There’s so much conformity in lots of non conformity, like silly goth kids groups lol.. Such individuals yet they all look the same.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes. And don’t even get me started on the vamp kids
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Initially though Apple had no weight in the cellphone world. Unfortunately we are not the end user to most of the OEM’s.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
yeah that’s part of the problem. Even if OEMs sold directly to people instead of carriers, they’d still probably skin because I think that’s what the masses want. If they were selling to everyone commenting here obviously it would be a different story (a cooler story imo)
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t buy that users prefer Android skins. I haven’t seen any market research that backs that up. From what I can tell the most popular phones tend to be the Google phones, which are unskinned.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
… which is why Goog should have bought spectrum and become a carrier! AUGH!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And then given everyone free access and paid for it by delivering location based ads. That would have been amazing!
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you had a stock Android device, people would be buying because it WOULD be different from the rest of the crowd.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:51 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“insisting that he ‘has to make money’”
Is he a CEO of a major tech company or a used car salesman?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 7:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think he’s the CEO of Motorola?
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You western world and your dependancies on operators…..
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Motorola proved the idea that you need a skinned device wrong years ago… http://ronoffringa.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/carriers-dont-want-seven-stock-android-devices-on-their-shelves/
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except the Droid had a skin. It just wasn’t immediately apparent because there weren’t any other 2.0 devices.
That, and the Droid is a special case. It was the first Android phone with any marketing support whatsoever, and was the first Android phone fully embraced by the carrier.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The Droid did not have a skin, other Android phones had marketing, and other carriers had fully embraced Android.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It most certainly did have a skin. The app drawer was skinned, as were several other aspects of the OS. There’s a reason why no other Android phone had a version of Android that looked like it.
Oh, and that you think that about marketing and carriers embracing Android means you don’t really know your history of Android. T-mobile’s support of it was half-assed all around. It was NEVER supported or embraced like Verizon did for the Droid. Its not even comparable. The Droid put Android on the map. Marketing and Verizon embracing Android had everything to do with it.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 10:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The original Droid did not have a skin on it. If you can document the skin I’d be happy to see it. Also, I don’t think T-Mobile had the money to support Android the way Verizon did, which is why the campaigns and strategies were so different.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 12:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This. I have a OG Droid sitting in front of me. No skin on it at all.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 1:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I seriously hope Google sends this guy packing once the deal closes. He’s way out of his depth as a tech company CEO.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Motorola wouldn’t exist without him. He was the driving force behind motorola’s switch to Android, and he’s been the driving force behind their much improved design and quality. Google won’t be ditching him any time soon.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:37 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What choice did he have other than to switch to Android? WinMo was dead and WP7 was a ways off. It was no brilliant decision – it was the only viable decision. He’ll be gone in a year.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 9:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
WinMo wasn’t dead when Motorola decided to move to Android. Or do you not recall the prototypes and renders we got that showed WinMo devices that looked very similar to a certain Android device? They also had Symbian, which was also not dead back then.
At the time, going all in on Android, was a HUGE risk. Not even HTC was doing it. When it happened it was unheard of, and ridiculed by many tech sites as too risky for a company doing as badly as Motorola.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 10:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
WinMo wasn’t dead, but it was pretty static despite Microsoft having spent a decade pushing it at OEMs and carriers. And before Jha started cutting, Motorola Mobility was dealing with over half-a-dozen mobile OSes and development platforms (WinMo, MOTOMAGX (a Linux/Java hybrid), Symbian, BREW, P2K, Wisdom, Java ME) in various stages of active development and legacy support, and at least twice as many hardware reference platforms. Going all-in on Android was a huge risk, true, but it offered a clean slate with no licensing or royalty fees (at the time…) — an attractive proposition to a company bleeding money.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Seems to me like he is trying to deflect people’s ire towards the carriers. Perhaps rightfully so, at least to an extent, and perhaps it will help put market pressure on the carriers to do away with skins as well. I’m not holding my breath, but I will be voting with my dollars, because you won’t catch me dead without a google experience device anymore.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:17 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Whatever happened to hardware differentiation instead of just software. There are many different computer manufacturers that use windows 7 and all of them have the same software. Some are experimenting with custom guis but the consumer still has the choice of which GUI they’d rather use. All android phones should come with an option to use the stock android experience or use the manufacturers skin. To pay 300 dollars for a too of the line smartphone only to be told you have to use the manufacturers skin is pretty crappy IMO.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:28 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
If manufacturers want to start making fewer phones, they should dedicate the time that would be originally spent on product design, on software for the phones. Once a new version of Android is released, update each device as quickly as possible. Give consumers the option to replace stock Android with whichever skin they’d like. It’d be awesome to turn on a phone right out the box and have it say "Hey I’m running “Blur” or whatever they call me these days, but press this if you’d like me to be stock Android." Have the consumer choose to differentiate their phone from all the other phones on the shelf…the carriers should not make that choice.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hey Verizon and AT&T, I don’t buy your devices because of those skins. Devices with vanilla Android are the only ones I spend any time looking at, and at this point those devices are the ones that stand out the most from all the other skinned devices.
And honestly, it doesn’t seem to me that any carrier can compare apples to apples if they claim those devices don’t sell since the skinned devices are the ones with all the marketing behind them. If customers don’t know about a device, they can’t make an informed decision. They just buy the purdy one they saw on TV.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why do they care what carriers think? Carriers are a tube, they should have nothing to do with the UI of a smartphone.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you dense? The manufacturers build what the carriers want. End of story.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 8:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s only the case in a stagnant market where the carriers don’t have to compete on price.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Carriers want want to skin their Android phones because it ultimately de-leverages Google by preventing people from developing any loyalty to the Android brand as a whole.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 10:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
WOW… isn’t it very obvious of how Carriers control the handset devices… and its manufacturers… Damn… Google has no control over anything except for providing the free OS to this manufacturers… It would be interesting to see how Apple handles the marketing and strategy during this situations… Because it is just one device and it is their flagship device :)
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 10:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This has nothing to do with Apple
if for example they license out IOS to Motorola, HTC and Samsung
would it really sell if they just run the same IOS underneath with different screen sizes, resolutions and then Apple comes out with their own iPhone as well running the SAME os
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I had to wait until I got home to say this, so I’m sure other people have already, but here it is anyway:
It’s fine if you don’t want seven stock android devices. But at least give us two or three.
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 | 11:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple/iOS : The cutomer is the end user consumer
Android Phonen makers: The carrier is our customer. Who they eventually sell it tonis their business.
Remember when Android was going to disipt all of this… the Google got in bed with Verizon and it was all over.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 1:41 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Sorry for the typos. EDIT!
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 1:42 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I can easily think of seven different hardware models easily differentiable by eye.
- large screen (4.3" +)
- small screen (4"
)
slider- bb-style candybar
- superfast dual-core blah blah blah
- cheap and just fast enough to not get thrown out a window
- and the combinations of the above get you a ton more than seven models.
And that’s not even mentioning all the weird experiments like optical zoom lenses, rear touchpads, square screens, pivot keyboards, etc. that we’ve seen on Android.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 7:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think they mean differentiation from what other carriers have, for customer lock in.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:00 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t seven?
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 2:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I paid full price for my Galaxy Nexus, screw Carriers…
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think the comparison to Windows and laptops is very relevant. Like a gaming PC that runs Windows vs. average Dell running Windows. Consumers DO want a stock OS. They will always know how to use it. But they also want to be able to easily customize it and make it their own. This is why Apps and ROMS are so popular. I want to do different things with my device, but no reason the OS below shouldn’t function the same.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Did Sanjay Jha just say that its impossible to profit on making devices that do what the customers actually want and don’t confuse them? How exactly does Motorola profit again? Don’t they need to sell devices to customers? This makes it sound like the carrier is their customer — which is the same skewed-perspective mistake that RIM made.
While I agree that LESS models and LONGER support for those models makes sense for Motorola, this is the same company that is following the November 2011 Droid RAZR with the announcement of the Droid RAZR MAXX in January 2012. This is yet another one of the execs whose statements to the press do nothing for me and actually make me cringe.
The correct answer for Google (IMO) is to partner tightly with Motorola and not run them as an independent company. Then make Motorola the avenue through which you CAN buy stock Android phones with no extra garbage on top. Very few people like or need the extra garbage on top. If the other hardware manufacturers want to skin the Android experience, then let them lag behind everybody else in doing so. I think you will see Motorola skyrocket in sales compared to competitors if they offered 3 to 4 models of stock Android smartphones on a yearly basis:
1) one large screen (4.5-inch)
2) one compact (3.5-inch)
3) one with a slider keyboard
4) one with a palm/blackberry style keyboard (might not need this)
Then support all four models for 18 to 24 months with stock Android updates — including regular security updates.
Right now. it seems to me, that offering stock Android would IN FACT be a way to differentiate from the competition since everybody else (except Nexus devices) is offering a skinned experience.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Too much work. Four new high end devices per year, and supporting them, is too hard. And then Samsung does a thinner one with a .2" larger screen and a skinned OS that looks more like iOS, and suddenly no one buys your Motorola phone anymore.
Carriers dont want it supported for too long they want people to upgrade because they have to resign the contract.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:14 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Carriers to blame. Who knew? /s
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 3:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What’s important about a network? It’s fast and cheap and available everywhere. It works by a constantly-evolving public standard. “Waa, but we can’t make money that way!” Yes, you can. But the important thing on the network is what hangs off it: the phones and devices. I like Android. I hate the business model. Little feudal powers, our “networks.” If wired phones had evolved the same way wireless had, we’d never have had a world telecommunications system. The hell with the “networks.” Regulate ’em.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I hate car analogies, but in case you wern’t aware a huge numbers of cars sold by brand X are made by someone else. I don’t know US specifics so I’ll use our models:
1980’s Holden Barina (was made by Suzuki in Japan)
1990’s Holden Barina (was made by Opel in Germany)
2000’s Holden Barina (now made by Daewoo factory in Korea)
The only car made by Holden was the Commodore.
But the consumer just buys another Holden Barina, by Holden. Holden would never just sell a car made by someone else with the makers branding on it, that’s just stupid.
Holden Cruise, was Suzuki now Daewoo.
Then you have the Toyota Lexcen, which is made by Holden. It’s a Holden Commodore that is identical except for the badges.
Old Ford Laser, is really a Mazda 323. Etc.
But with phone carriers it’s even more important, the money is made over time, by selling a contract not a device. They have to have a unique branded device to sell or they loose their competitive advantage.
“AT&T has shit coverage, why don’t you use Verizon?” “I wanted the iPhone” “Oh ok.”
A device unique to a carrier keeps people on that carrier, carriers want customer retention, and they know that most customers have no clue what software is on their phone as don’t care. At most, a customer might ask “Can I check my email on it, or Facebook?”
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:10 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I thought skins were used by manufacturers to differentiate themselves from other manufacturers.
Why do the carriers care? They’re still going to sell a phone even though they’re all running the same version of OS? The customer is going to end up picking ONE.
I guess I don’t get what Sanjay is saying.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The carriers care because they want to differentiate their phone portfolios from their competitors’. It’s a way for a carrier to advertise itself. This can take the form of an exclusive/unique piece of hardware (e.g., the Galaxy Nexus and Verizon, or the first few iterations of the iPhone and AT&T). More commonly, it’s with custom UIs or UI skins, carrier branding on the housing, and paint colors — there was a time when the original RAZR was available in at least three different shades of pink, and each shade was unique to a specific carrier.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 4:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
OK, I see. Thanks.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The difference is if you get hit with an ETF if you break your contract.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I seriously doubt that the carriers give a hoot whether Motoblur (or whatever they’re calling it at the moment) is on a given phone. And I doubt that carriers make most of their phone sales money from whatever bloatware they’ve contracted to drop onto a given phone, whether it belongs to them or to a third party like Blockbuster (rest in tiny pieces).
I can believe that carriers don’t want stock Android on their phones, because people could then in theory just hang onto their phones in perpetuity – or at least until the specs for the newest version of Android becomes too much for their phone and they’re forced to upgrade. Much easier for the carriers to demand built-in obsolescence from the OEMs by making it so end users can’t control updates. If OEM X flat out stops updating skinned Phone Y after about a year, most consumers will throw up their hands and just buy the newest phone when they hit end-of-contract, even if it doesn’t have the very newest version of Android because it’s better than whatever’s on their phone by 1 or 2 versions.
Motorola is technically correct to think of the carriers as their customer, but Verizon/AT&T/et al. need to stop thinking of themselves as their own customers and pay attention to what people want or expect for having waited 2 years to get a new device. The utter flop that was the Droid 3 is a great lesson is what happens when the carriers don’t consumer expectations into consideration.
Posted on Jan 11, 2012 | 5:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
At some point I can understand the carriers. It would be weird when a normal consumer gets in a phone store and he see’s 20 phones who all look the same, just a little different form factor and tech specs (were normal consumer don’t care about).
So maybe we should just stop thinking that Android phones must all look and feel the same. We’ve our Nexus series which is like the iPhone for iOS. And then we have Sense, TouchWiz and MotoConnect/Blur Phones which just run on Android.
The only thing which I don’t like and undestand is how deep they include their Cumston UIs in the System. I mean Anroid is very open and it has it’s intents. They could also make different Launcher, Dialer, Contact Lists but just put them as regular APKs on the phone and declare them as standard/default. What stops them from doing it? People would have the choise to rip the custom stuff very easily off to get a Vanilla Android if they want, Updates would be much faster, and they could also update single system apps much easier.
That’s the point which really interests me and if you see one of the CEO again please ask them .
Posted on Jan 12, 2012 | 6:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Since carriers are the ones who seem to be against stock android, they should let it be an option and let the customer pick whether they want skinned Android or stock. Something like when the customer doesn’t want Sense or TouchWiz, they can download GO Launcher or something else.
Posted on Jan 12, 2012 | 10:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That argument seems flawed to me. As far as I know, Verizon and AT&T each have multiple devices with Motorola’s skinned UI, as well as multiple TouchWiz devices and multiple Sense devices. Why can’t they have just 2-3 stock Android devices? Since there are basically no stock devices (besides the Nexus) on Verizon and AT&T, having a couple stock devices would actually increase their amount of differentiation by having another option that they don’t yet offer.
T-mobile seems to understand that a little better since the G series has always been stock Android, hopefully they continue that line; and hopefully they bump it up to an annual cycle instead of biennial.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 7:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“We’ll have more news from our conversation shortly”
No more updates? Also no video of that conversation?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 8:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Just because Verizon or AT&T doesn’t want every device on their shelves to be stock Android doesn’t mean each manufacturer shouldn’t release at least one phone that’s stock Android. If Pantech released nothing but stock Android, they’d suddenly be noticed.
At least the manufacturers (and the carriers) should be giving us the option to go to stock Android.
Posted on Jan 23, 2012 | 4:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I agree with your point. It seems like the carriers are saying all Android phones should be skinned, they’re forgetting that no skin could be an option. It’s almost like they thing it’s an all skinned or none skinned, when in reality they could have most of their Android lineup skinned, but keep a few stock options on the shelves as a way to differentiate.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
think*
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 5:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.