Hardware vendor reverse attack is pseudo problem Samsung is aiming to raise chips

"The hardware manufacturer's reverse attack is doomed to be reactive and return," the article Tencent Technology is invited to participate in its "science and Technology Arena" section of the article, which is a PK content planning, throw a topic, and then find two diametrically opposed views of the author, the respective chambers, and then let the reader to vote on the wrong. At that time Bichauhi as the "hardware manufacturers can reverse platform manufacturers," the author, also has a lot of support articles. Tiger Sniff also has low-key bystanders and Wu net not Huan of different opinions, two think a lot of I did not consider the content, I read after also feel benefit, also take this opportunity to continue to talk about this topic. First, on the relationship between the hardware manufacturer and the platform manufacturer, it is easy to fall into the "chicken and egg" paradox vortex, we try not to join the "if there is no hardware, the platform is useless" and "if there is no platform, hardware is scrap" such controversy, otherwise can never reach consensus, because both sides of the hypothesis are right. There is no doubt that hardware and platform, there is a symbiotic relationship between the harmonizing, both sides can not exist alone, but also in mutual cooperation, game, competition among the compromise relationship. I am in the "hardware manufacturers of the reverse attack doomed to be reactive and back" at the end of the article there is a conclusion: "The so-called ' Spring river water heating Duck Prophet '-only with users directly at the system level of the long deal with the platform manufacturers can have enough sense of smell to in-depth grasp of the needs of users, as for hardware manufacturers, It's hard to expect them to know what they want simply by touching the fingertips of the device. "may be a bit too much, the meaning of this sentence I did not express thoroughly, and it is I want to demonstrate hardware manufacturers difficult to reverse platform manufacturers key." The birth of Windows and Macs comes at a time of a wave of computer revolutions, both for users and hardware makers, almost white paper, a huge innovation space for PCs, and a very low cost of trial and error, whether the original version of Windows or Mac is far from the mature version of today, There is a history of detours, getting lost and even going the wrong way. However, the background of the mobile device is Phoebe's, the majority of its users are transferred from the PC, in the post-PC era, the user experience is more able to attract users to make choices, iOS and Android also experienced a considerable version change, But they do not have the same huge difference as the PC-era operating system, which is the distinctive feature of the mobile Internet: hardware is no longer a high-tech, daunting technology product for users, but an electronic tool that becomes commonplace in life. So, I say that the platform manufacturers have "enough sense of smell", and hardware manufacturers are very difficult "through the fingertips of users touch the device to know what each other wants", that is, in the design of mobile systems platform, we must consider the designer's own "skills." Google acquired Andy Rubin's Android in 2005 and took two years to launch its later Google ANdroid operating system, in addition to alliance with hardware manufacturers, but also put a lot of human and material resources to interpret the user's operating habits from the data level-although Google was still mobile internet recruits, but mobile internet users are more than PC Internet users, Google can dig deep into the data on user behavior and habits it obtains on the PC Internet, and make some calculations to improve the usability and user experience of Android. We must not use the knowledge of biographical literature to understand this kind of investment in research and development, a truly successful operating system, is definitely not a few simple, designers and engineers can be close to the processing, "Start research and development" in the entire development line may be in the middle of the next stage, a long time in front of the efforts, are based on the data to do a variety of waits and frequent calculations. And this kind of "skill", is the hardware manufacturer is powerless. Google knows the full data of all users who have used Google services, and hardware vendors such as Samsung don't know what the users of Samsung hardware are doing, you can use a Samsung phone to smash walnuts or use it to press pages, and they won't pass to Samsung. Therefore, if the hardware manufacturers want to reverse the development of their operating system, then in the acquisition of data can only choose to implement (or buy) market research, and then hit the money to ask McKinsey or BCG to the limited number of samples to do paper analysis, Finally, use the hundreds of-page results report to determine what kind of operating system you should come up with ... Not that it is impossible to succeed, but the success rate is very low. Mr Jobs's reputation as an old man who has never done market research and brains to subvert the industry, but he is so famous is that there is only one job in the world. Many media like to use the so-called "upstream and downstream" to assess the role of a chain of different responsibilities, in fact, in business schools, "upstream and downstream" has a deeper definition, it embodies the industrial chain in the "Value Chain" status (industrial chain concept contains four latitude.) Are value chain, Enterprise chain, supply chain and space chain. "Upstream link to the downstream link to transport products or services, downstream links to upstream feedback information", is the classic model of economic production. Or take Samsung and Google for example, Google on the Android side of the information feedback, a large proportion is through Samsung mobile phone equipment transmission, but Samsung is like a mail transmission of the relay server, no, more image is a butcher in a market, several tons of pork every day, But at best he can only get lard. Any downstream role extension to the upstream role has a natural difficulty gap, just as Foxconn produces hundreds of billions of devices every year for Apple, and we don't think Foxconn has the ability to create iphone-grade products independently. * Open Handset Alliance Alliance member. 2007, Google set up open HanDset Alliance (Open handset Federation), Samsung is one of the founding members, gaining access to the flagship software Android licensing based on open source licenses and supporting the corresponding development standards. In other words, Android's successful experience and technical advantage, Samsung can not be replicated on Tizen or other autonomous platforms, we could look around the world, IOS, Android, Windows phone three platform manufacturers have been recruited almost all the top technical personnel, I am also pessimistic about the likelihood that if the new platform that the hardware manufacturer uses to reverse the attack needs to be successful, it must have the features of iOS, Android, and Windows phone that are just forgetting, and with revolutionary innovation. I said, "Take history as a mirror," to look back on why Dell, HP, IBM did not go against Microsoft, that is to say, in the business economy, "quit" is not timid, it means self-knowledge, means the stability of order, also means to avoid the failure of the rash. Using the Apple case as a rebuttal is slightly inappropriate. Apple does not "redefine smartphones", it is the opportunity to seize the function of mobile phones to smartphone changes, come up with the market demand for products, this is not the reverse-it is simply given up and Nokia's Symbian to snatch the function of mobile phone platform upstream position, But directly occupy a position in the latter era seat just vacant upstream position, by the way take all the downstream. And more importantly, the Mac OS based Apple is really a hardware manufacturer like Samsung? Finally, from the perspective of enterprise development, I do not think Samsung will blatantly attack Android, in the existing Android phone shipments guaranteed, Samsung's profit margin is already in the same industry lead, give up such a good result, risk offending Google to affect the existing profit base, To bet on an independent platform with an unknown market outlook, the deal is not worth it. Google's wariness of Samsung is simply to worry that Samsung, the dominate who lays the Android market, is looking for a bigger advertising divide. In a way, it's like the top of a nightclub, hoping to ask for a higher dividend from the boss. Standing on the top of the point of view, although the right to speak is some, but really want to go out alone, resources, size, strength on the moment difficult to contend with the old club. And the nightclub side, a new one to pick up on it.