[RyanZAG]

While I'm sure Samsung would love to replace Android with Tizen, I doubt they will actually be able to do it. While Apple and Google make it appear easy to create an OS that users enjoy using, the reality is that it is incredibly difficult.

Just look at Windows Phone - I'm fairly sure that Microsoft is more able to create a technically superior OS to Samsung, and I think the amount of money Microsoft has poured into Windows Phone advertising shows the amount of marketing talent that is likely being used. Yet Windows Phone is a dismal failure even with Nokia's huge manufacturing bulk behind it. The only sensible conclusion I can come to is that making a desirable mobile OS is far more difficult than it appears, and that there are numerous 'below the water line' effects that make a mobile OS popular.

I very much doubt that Samsung is going to be able to transition the bulk of their Android users to Tizen. I also believe attempting it will be a mistake with both HTC and Sony having very strong challengers to the S4 this year. Any deficiency in the S4 to try and swing customers to Tizen will just mean an erosion of market share as consumers move to HTC/Sony/ZTE etc.

I expect Tizen to get decent traction in China, India and SE Asia in the lower-price tiers, but I can't see it unseating Android in any shape or form.

[uchi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sleep deprived walltexts. I am sorry HN.

[smacktoward]

"Microsoft is associated with corporation and money and monopoly."

This is a good point, but I think it'd be closer to the mark to say that Microsoft is associated with work.

People are often forced to use Microsoft products when they are at work. They frequently have little say in how these products are selected or configured. They're told that The Company has made those decisions for them, so they should just shut up and learn to love them, all hail The Company.

This is not an association that will make people leap joyfully to buy the same products when they are deciding what to spend their personal money on.

This is part of why I have been baffled at MS's insistence on branding Windows 8 and Windows Phone, both of which they desperately want individual consumers to buy into, as "Windows" products. Windows is work. Products to be sold to individuals need to be positioned more like play to be appealing.

[azakai]

Spot on. For most people, Microsoft products are what your boss tells you to use. Psychologically, there is just no appeal in buying them outside of work.

Microsoft was smart not to call XBOX "Windows Console" or such, but probably silly to call their mobile OS "Windows Phone".

[stock_toaster]

I wonder if they had called it "XPhoneOS" and targeted some type of gaming integration/compatibility with XBOX/XBLA if they would have had better luck.

[hbharadwaj]

I agree with your branding conclusion. That maybe primarily one of the reasons why Nokia is going big on the Lumia branding that a WP8 branding.

Android does not have support on a lot of phones beyond the original version which comes with the phone. The only problem for MS is the fact they spell out the fact that old phones can't be upgraded due to a kernel change which end consumers don't understand. Upgrade options are available on Android only because of the hacker community.

The rest of your post is just your opinion on Android v/s WP8. So, no comments.

[camus]

I agree 100% , MS brand hurts its own products outside the corporate realm. They should use a total different branding for non Windows related stuffs or rebrand themself totally.

[RyanZAG]

Replying to my own comment...

Regarding Touchwizz and Android app compatibility - without the core Google services (maps, play, etc), many popular Android apps will not run. The differences in the underlying platform is also likely to cause many errors and incompatibilities on non-modified Android apps run on Tizen. This means more app crashes and more uncertainty.

In any event, full Android app compatibility and Android apps as first class apps means that Tizen basically is Android in any case - it will have to have Dalvik, Linux ARM compatibility, identical OpenGL interfaces, identical Linux interfaces, etc. Seeing as Android is Apache licensed anyway, I'm having difficulty in seeing the point? Why not just take Android, create a fork, and rename it to Tizen? I don't see any benefits in re-inventing a platform that will just mimic Android (and have all the same limitations to keep compatibility).

Legal issues - I can't see any legal difference in forking Apache licensed code and renaming vs starting from scratch.

Usability - both Samsung Android devices and Tizen devices will have the same Touchwizz UI. Far as I can tell, Samsung is actually aiming for identical usability here.

Compatibility - all of the Google Maps based Apps won't work. Users won't get the great gmail/gtalk/google now integration that they can on Android. No free best-of-breed navigation. No Google Play - users will have to rely on devs uploading their app to Samsung store along with Google Play. Seems like a big point against Tizen here.

Control (for Samsung) - Samsung can already add/remove whatever they want to Android. I'm guessing Google puts certain demands on Samsung to use the Android name and Google apps, but Samsung can just use a different name and no Google apps. In Tizen they're going to have to do this anyway.

The more I look into this, the stranger it becomes. I can't work out what Samsung is trying to accomplish here. This smells like a project they inherited with Intel with the likely purpose being rivalry with Nokia and perhaps internal politics. Maybe some misunderstanding of how much freedom they actually have with Apache licensed Android?

[MatthewPhillips]

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

[1]http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/31/google-tightening-control...

[RyanZAG]

Far as I can tell, those clauses are specifically related to the Android trademark / Google Apps / etc. Creating a full fork (of the publicly available source) as allowed by the Apache license with different name and no direct relation to Android should be just as good as creating Tizen.

I guess the sticky point here is the closed-source early access releases that Samsung gets. Google must be threatening access to this if any OEM gets on their bad side. Fairly nasty move if so, and Tizen doesn't protect Samsung here. If Tizen takes off, you can expect Google to drop Samsung's access to early release builds in any event as Google will then try to force customers to use Moto/LG/HTC/etc devices.

So I don't think Tizen helps here at all, as Google can drop Samsung's early access rights for any reason they want. They can just as easily decide that Tizen is fragmenting Android.

[MatthewPhillips]

No, the clause applies to Android forks, not just those using the Android name, Acer was forced to cancel a phone using an Android fork going by another name because of it: http://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/09/13/alibaba-claims-google-...

[ben1040]

That no-forking requirement was a function of Acer being a member of the Open Handset Alliance.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-...

[fakeer]

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

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

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

[RyanZAG]

Great points. I think that helps me fill in a few gaps in what Samsung might be thinking here.

Google has threatened that Samsung lose support if they fork Android. They might or might not actually do it - Samsung is a major Android player. The threat is still enough that Samsung have chosen not to try forking Android.

However, Samsung still wants more control. The solution is to use Tizen with Android compatibility to try and wrest that control from Google, but while still acting within the boundaries Google have given them. If Tizen doesn't take off then Samsung can just fall back on Google Android. If Tizen does take off, then they now have enough weight to push Google around as they wish.

Google isn't worried about Tizen as they believe that Samsung will not be able to out code them, and that Android apps running on Tizen will not be as good as Android apps running on Android. While I'm sure that Google would prefer if Samsung wasn't trying out Tizen, they believe they have a strong enough bet that Tizen will fail and Samsung will come crawling back anyway.

So the whole situation now makes a lot of sense from both Google and Samsung's side. From this we can probably take away that Tizen will get the best hardware first to give it more chance of taking off. Also, Google is likely to try and add new services in future Android versions that will make it more difficult to run Android apps on other platforms. Interesting and falsifiable, in a year's time we can see if these predictions are true!

Anybody think I've got way on/off track here?

[fakeer]

>>The threat is still enough that Samsung have chosen not to try forking Android.

I can't think of anything great or innovative Samsung can after forking Android. It will let it die a sad and quick death by turning into an extended TouchWiz all over. I think Samsung knows that it's better to let Google do the dirty job.

As per Tizen, not sure about its potential. I think other OEMs, if tried together would a lot better, rather than just Samsung(or practically the only one and leading the push) would try for it, work fir it would be better. Samsung just going to make this mobile OS a bulky ugly mammoth. It looks like Bada I think. Doesn't feel elegant but what I used was not a final version. It was boot-up phase and haven't checked after that.

But this is not the case. It's Samsung and Intel and the rest - means just two of them. Nokia had a good opportunity. But then it's hardly in a situation to risk sth other than MS.

Anybody think I've got way on/off track here?

Naah, you are pretty fine. All one can do right now is speculate.

[sachingulaya]

One correction: The last nexus(nexus 4) was from LG. The Galaxy Nexus & Nexus S were from Samsung.

[fakeer]

Yes, that is why I said last two. I knew that. I own Nexus #3 and have worked on both #2 and #3 (and of course #4 is LG's and maybe #5 too) :-)

Thanks for reminding though. Maybe I should have explicitly excluded the current from from last two.

[wildster]

I just got an upgrade on a Sony Xperia J from their version of 4.0 to their version of 4.1.

[OGinparadise]

If Tizen takes off, you can expect Google to drop Samsung's access to early release builds in any event as Google will then try to force customers to use Moto/LG/HTC/etc devices.

The HN gods banned me for saying bad things about Google, but I have one word for you: antitrust.

[kyrra]

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

[OGinparadise]

Check Android market shares on smartphones all over the world and see what you get. Google escaped Search scrutiny in US by buying off lots of politicians with tens of millions in lobbying but they'd get crushed if they blackmailed Samsung over Tizen.

[MatthewPhillips]

I reached a different conclusion from Windows Phone's failure; that being good isn't necessarily enough. Momentum matters a whole lot.

Which, to me, makes Tizen a bit of a mystery. If Android has the momentum Tizen will fail, but if Samsung has it Tizen might just have a chance.

[laureny]

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

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

[neya]

Well said as always Ryan! Agreed :) IT would definitely be a bad move for Samsung and of course a good move on behalf of Apple :)

[yareally]

Perhaps the largest hurdle is convincing users it's worth giving up all the apps they invested in by purchasing that won't carry over to the Tizen ecosystem. Granted that many Android apps are free, but that's only one part. Most users would hate to give up the apps they are used to having and the data they have stored in them as well. Users already mull it over when they switch between iOS and Android (or vice versa). Committing to Tizen or anything else is for many users, too high of a risk with the costs of the hardware and also the time to set it up and find app alternatives.

[hga]

It's my understanding that Microsoft's mobile efforts suffered a unique discontinuity that makes it hard to compare them to others: they bought Skype on 10 May 2011, making them anathema to carriers.

[wslh]

> ...the reality is that it is incredibly difficult.

Looking at the industry history it seems more a problem of mindset, that implies a failure understanding a different industry (e.g: hardware != software, ISP != Web). For example, before the new Windows Phone 8 it was incredible that Microsoft insisted with an awkward UI that came from the Palm era. There are a lot of other examples like Nokia/Ovi, Telefonica/Lycos.

[james-skemp]

I have Windows Phone 7.5 that I love. But my next phone will be Android.

Yes, Windows Phone rocks, but they don't have the apps iOS and Android have. And while I can certainly browse sites directly (preference anyway), web developers forget about it during testing. Not that I blame them, since being one myself I know it's still a niche group.

If their OS can run Android apps ... they're already ahead of MS.

[ttflee]

I don't see why Tizen could get any traction against Android even in China. Android has been incorporated by manufacturers, especially those smaller ones who used to make feature phones. Unless samsung were ready to make huge amount of subsidies, it would hardly happen, IMHO.