I love the quotation. I guess having a website means you make nonsensical statements and then be quoted on some smear campaign's website?
"This campaign may be the dumbest thing ever posted to the Internet" -- Jonathan Rockway, jrock.us.
Credible!
(Also, while Google ads may have funded the beginning of Android, it has enough corporate sponsorship now that it could easily outlive Google. Samsung or HTC could easily take over Google's role if some shiny new Web 2.0 startup kills it. But I'm not holding my breath. All I can say is man... people on the Internet are dumb...)
Do you think that Android in its current incarnation as quasi-open-source, free to adopt, would survive? Or do you think it would be death by a thousand forks, where Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc. all grabbed their own copy of the repository and made TouchWiz, Sense, and Blur respectively a core part of the UI? I just can't see how Android as a device-agnostic OS would survive without a relatively neutral curator.
An open foundation could work. Imagine Apache Android. Sure there would be fragmentation, but at the moment the need for apps is pushing them together. If web apps win then the APIs look a bit different, with more scope for UX differences.
This would rapidly become the Unix-wars of the 80's all over again... OR Microsoft would gladly step into Google shoes, completely uninvited but unchallenged, while wielding their deadly patent swords.
I think it would resemble Linux personally, each vendor would probably set up their own app store and their own package system but binary compatibility would probably remain. There is just too much at stake for all involved to fracture it as bad as the Unix wars.
HTC pays Microsoft for using Android and soon Samsung may join too. Since Googles smart-ass bidding for Nortel patent did not play out taking over "free" OS may seem to expensive
for these companies: pay for development and pay patents fee.
But if they used their own OS, they would pay for development and patent fess, too. And if they use a commercial OS, the patent fees are just rolled into the final price (and other companies can still go after them for other patents; no software includes patent indemnity).
As a resident of Waterloo and student at UWaterloo, I can tell you this does not represent the opinion of the student body. It is true, UW has got a lot of benefit from RIM and we are very grateful, but half of us have also interned there, so know from experience that the company has a lot of problems they need to work out.
I use an iPhone. Most of my friends have a Nexus S or other androids.
Google's Kitchener/Waterloo office is growing rapidly. Google has been hiring many of us (UWaterloo students/grads) for intern/full-time positions. I, for one, welcome our new Android overlords.
... every 6 seconds, a BlackBerry device is thrown into the trash(hopefully a recycling bin) due to the evils of better devices like Android.
Devices like Android smartphones are creating a "better" model when it comes to user experience, apps, and price, yet how can we define "better"? Is it by a truly better experience? No. We like to define better as "stfu google, rim r0x0rs, tr0l0l0l0l0l! I'm not listening to what you're saying! Go away. RIM ruuuuulz". So next time people tell you that google is better, shove fingers in your ears and kick him in the nuts, because rim is just awesome.
---
Edit: Seriously though? TomTom needs to fight google? Thats laughable. Why wouldent I want to buy a device that costs me extra ($150-400), is bulky, non-free map updates, and is known for selling user data to whoever offers money and a good enough usage case?
But you have to admit, playing 'geek-detective' is more fun, right? I mean, who believes the stuff in an "About" page when you can run a whois and get the _Truth_ ^_^
They don't claim it's anything more. From their website:
"""
1. "Isn't this just a gimmick to promote a startup?"
Yes, of course, FightAndroid.org is intended to help a startup (Paybuyer) – a startup that will indeed damage Google's AdWords and Android if it succeeds. To see why, view this PowerPoint presentation given to RIM executives in late March.
"""
I see nothing about "building a better machine" from a technical perspective on their site, which I'd expect given the byline.
I'm no fan of google's business model (advertising in the vast majority of cases == worthless noise), but at least they are using their position to further technology in good ways, which is more than I can see coming out of RIM.
I think people are taking this more seriously than intended. It's a PR ploy for a company unrelated to RIM (and as spaetzel pointed out, possibly unrelated to Waterloo too).
Unfortunately their little PR ploy looks embarrassing to Waterloo, UWaterloo, and especially RIM. As a UW student, it's a little insulting that they expect to appeal to protectionist urges to help their own little company, which appears to not even be from Canada let alone Waterloo.
> Is this one of those "it doesn't have to make sense, it's just for publicity" things?
Pretty much.
> Why are the uni students holding a rally? What connection do they have to"Paybuyer, LLC" which funds this Adwords competitor?
It's not a rally; they're holding up giant signs to face traffic. I think it was four people to a sign. (It didn't occur to me to take a picture until I was already far away.)
This is just a PR stunt from a new Waterloo-based advertising startup. They're simply piggy-backing on the whole RIM vs Android thing with weirdly-phrased anti-Android propaganda.
It's not even advertising. It's a mashup of the yahoo directory (from the early 1990's) concept combined with a Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes model.
There are no ads that are put onto publishers' websites to get paid. In order for this to work people have to manually go to the web-based "yellow pages" and then register their intent to buy say, a washing machine, and then that gives you a lottery ticket where if you win, you have to prove that you have purchased a washing machine within N days of registering your intent.
So suppose I have already decided to buy a washing machine, and GE, Maytag, and Kenmore have all bought into this scheme. This allows me to get 3 lottery picks, which might have an expected value of 10 cents each ($100, with a 1 in 1000 chance of winning, say). Presumably GE, Maytag, and Kenmore will all have to pay 15 cents, with the startup pocketing 5 cents.
The question is whether GE, Maytag, and Kenmore get 15 cents worth of value. Remember, I was a motivated buyer who had already decided to buy a washing machine. The only question was which one. This isn't going to reach someone who hadn't yet decided that they were going to buy, and so didn't have the motivation to go to the startup's web page.
To think this would disrupt a true advertising based system, whether it's Adwords, or even the pullouts in the Sunday morning newspaper is just silly.
I honestly thought this whole thing was a hoax or some type of bad joke, then I see my former engineering building behind some people carrying the stupidest signs imaginable. This reeks of the "buy American" bromide that GM fans expose.
I have to believe that most people at U of W don't have an unnatural affinity towards RIM, and that this is all just a really stupid stunt.
So.. they hate Android. But their explanation of why is to point to some blog post which by my view concludes that Android is bringing 'perfect competition' to the marketplace. Soo.. I presume they are against that, but what's funny is the blog post they point to even discusses how perfect competition benefits the consumer and how preventing it would be detrimental.
Sounds like the blog post they point to doesn't exactly give reasons to hate android like they think it does...
More context: As I'm jogging to work, there were students holding up boards with those posters right in front of the RIM buildings. I feel embarrassed as a fellow Waterloo student.
Yeah, cooping in Toronto right now, just asked a bunch of my friends at school about this... I share your embarrassment. It actually hurts that a company is trying to manipulate us like this. Not just because it's so blindingly obvious, but because it will work on enough people.
Wait, they're doing it and not getting paid by someone to do it? I mean people (usually ridiculously hot women) stand out on the street holding up signs telling me how awesome red-bull is.
It's pretty easy to pick up a street promotions crew. The job generally tends to have Abercrombie-style hiring practices, pays a bit more than minimum wage, and is pretty flexible.
I'd honestly be shocked if there were people dumb enough to do that for real.
A new form of Jingoism. This is not how you are going to succeed in the long term. Even if this is half serious, appealing to the protective, negative instincts of people suggests that RIM's future is bleaker than I thought it was
Edit: It's not clear to me though if RIM has anything to do with this.
The website is laughable. The claims made all end in nonsequiturs. Paybuyer is highly speculative and vastly overestimating its ability to disrupt Google Adwords, even with their proposed backing from Waterloo and RIM.
Furthermore I don't pity RIM in the least. They made their bed. They chose to keep their products "business oriented" and got left behind when it came to innovation and, in the end, productivity. Why should I chastise Google for opening their platform and offering services for free? Google's model was clearly a better one at drawing customers in, which in turn fuels their advertising through use of mobile advertising in free apps.
The website claims Adwords funds Android and that's why it's evil, because it creates a "moat" around Google that makes it nigh impossible to compete with Google. I disagree. I believe Adwords and Android are symbiotic. They fuel each other, and if your company can't compete with Google then DON'T TRY TO COMPETE WITH GOOGLE. Choosing to do so is a huge risk, though it may net huge rewards. By taking them on you accept your fate, be it failure or success. Don't ask us to intervene on your behalf. I gain nothing by backing Paybuyer.
He hits a nerve, though. The evangelism for companies has been rising at an insane rate. Why do people feel the need to defend their favorite company against the encroachment of other companies?
I could understand if their paycheck was on the line. If you write iPod apps and Android starts taking market share, that threatens you. (Assuming you can't also write Android apps, for whatever reason.) But most people just go crazy with no stake at all.
Arguably Android is a special case: if it's eliminated by patent suits or other means, then every mainstream mobile platform will be locked down. That's bad for freedom and innovation, and makes abusive legislation like the CBDTPA feasible to enforce.
http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/apple-fan... is quite interesting in this regard. I know its focused on Apple users, but I wouldn't be surprised if you get similar results by putting evangelists for different platforms through the experiment.
The posters say to email the CEOs of Apple, Microsoft, and Tom Tom to stop Android because these companies have "lost tens of billions of dollars" (wtf do i care if they lost money?)
RIM building is in the background.
Students/PR firm (some look like students but they also have your typical hot, bare-waist chick helping) is having a hard time keeping the boards up, the wind keeps knocking them down. Guy in the orange seems to be calling the shots.
Drawings look like work of students.
I personally like RIM, really want to know whats going on here.
I doubt that college students are going to be upset by an open source project 'Destroying Wealth'. Why would anyone other than RIM share holders care if RIM is loosing market share to Android?
You care if you are a college kid who helped develop a competitor to Google's AdWords and you want to pitch it to RIM and MS. At least I think that's what is going on here.
Surprisingly, that strip of land they're standing on is actually Waterloo city property. It's a strange stunt for a service that looks pretty crappy but it sure did attract a lot of attention from bemused RIM employees milling about this morning.
"I know what to do: let's combat our competitor's overwhelming tactical advantage with faux moral outrage! It's a win-win-win for us!" -- rtperson, just now, sarcastically.
Not really. This appears to be a marketing tactic by a small startup trying to rile up all the Android fanboys and anti-Googlers in Waterloo; the hometown of RIM. So I wouldn't say that it has anything to do with RIM PR.
Looks like these guys have finally figured it out. This campaign is sure to make Waterloo and RIM look good. Oh wait, no, this is actually embarrassing.
So, an Ad company (Paybuyer - "a tiny startup with a major technology") makes a website campaigning people not to use AdSense?
> "Help defend RIM, your city, and universities by joining a rally outside RIM's Annual General Meeting"
I feel sorry for those who will actually go there, thinking that by this they will help RIM, and not that in fact they're helping Paybuyer.
EDIT: One more thing, instead of ignoring this kind of stuff, it gets submitted on HN. By doing this it get's spread. When someone is trolling and someone else replies to him, guess who wins. This shouldn't have been submitted at all.
I have long had a distrust for Google so I can understand the anti-Google sentiment. If we want a competitive battleground in the market, every player needs to be balanced. I was one of the earliest Android adopters but now I see that I must move on to one of the other underdogs (i.e. Nokia or HP).
Correction: at least two players need to be balanced. iPhone, to my mind, provides just such a balance. Trying to boost every single also-ran product into a position of strategic equity is a waste of time. Right now, RIM is the poster child for the Innovator's Dilemma, and there's little anyone including RIM can do about it.
You mention 'at least two players' but from your explanation, you seem satisfied with ONLY two players. I disagree. I'd rather have multiple competitive players than merely two.
I can't recall the name off hand and my googlefu is failing me but there's a theory that says a system that supports multiple political parties eventually evolves (or devolves) into two parties.
I think there's a business correlary as well.
Markets aren't designed to support more than one or two players. There's not enough market share in a given space for it. Eventually you'll have first, second and everyone else. The people in first and second may change but there's always a disproportionate market share between number 2 and the rest of the pack.
You might want multiple COMPETITIVE players but you will rarely see it. Eventually the minor market folks will quit because it makes no sense financially to continue in the space.
Markets aren't designed to support more than one or two players. There's not enough market share in a given space for it. Eventually you'll have first, second and everyone else.
What are you talking about? I've never heard that anywhere before?
How many car makers are there? Honda, Toyota, Ford. Right there is three, and they're all pretty darn big. And this ignores some pretty large folk like Chevy, GM, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes, and other household names.
How many PC computer makers? Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo. Four, and all pretty big.
How many casual shoe makers? Nike, Reebok, New Balance, Adidas, Sketchers.
There are tons of industries where there are more than two large players. IMO, it seems pretty clear that there will be at least three major players for mobile:
1) iOS. Only Apple.
2) Android
3) Some other phone that is licensed to the same OEMs that make Android devices. They want diversity so that a single company, like Motorola, can't just become the de facto leader. It's likely Windows Phone. Longshot is WebOS.
That doesn't mean that the two largest parties remain the most powerful forever. That's what makes it a theory.
For instance, look at state of the Canadian Parliament. For the longest time, the Conservative and Liberal parties were the two largest parties generally swapping power every couple of years. Now we see the Liberals have severely dropped in the power with the rise of the NDP to become the Official Opposition and being the second most voted party in Parliament. Even the Conservatives, who the hold, only garnered 40% of Canadian votes.
Again, what you're saying is a theory and it isn't even always the case.
I'd prefer this as well. The richest competitive ecosystem is always preferable. What I was addressing was the assertion that all players "needed" to be balanced. Necessity is not equivalent to preference. I'd prefer that all players be roughly equivalent, but in order to avoid a monopoly I'll settle for two major dominant competitors.
Perhaps 'balanced' was the wrong choice of words. Rather, I'd like to see the momentum shift periodically such that we increase the level of innovation from all players instead of the most powerful.
The part about making ad directories to kill Google is probably the stupidest things I've ever heard. Also, RIM should embrace Android. They can't fight it. Certainly not with their own OS, and theirs alone. At best, they might have a fighting chance adopting HP's WebOS, together with Samsung and a few others.
Together they could easily make a much more successful OS than WP7, and a worthy competitor to Android. Alone, they don't stand a chance. Nobody does, except Apple, because Apple has a lot of other advantages besides just an OS. The problem is they think the only way to be as successful as Apple is to have your own OS. And that's not nearly enough at this point.
Wait, this is serious? It smells like satire, or at best a troll. If you have a legit startup why in god's name would you act like RIM is the source of value and innovation in mobile? Why would you wed yourself to a company that's doing so poorly?
I meant that sarcastically. Apple used FreeBSD for much of the Unix underpinnings of OS X. They used KHTML as the basis of WebKit, which drives Safari. I just don't think the "fight Android" crowd will win much favor in Cupertino as Apple seems pretty happy working with Open Source.
"This campaign may be the dumbest thing ever posted to the Internet" -- Jonathan Rockway, jrock.us.
Credible!
(Also, while Google ads may have funded the beginning of Android, it has enough corporate sponsorship now that it could easily outlive Google. Samsung or HTC could easily take over Google's role if some shiny new Web 2.0 startup kills it. But I'm not holding my breath. All I can say is man... people on the Internet are dumb...)