The difference between Android and the pain of innovation

Absrtact: With the increasing Android share and the evolution of the system version, handset makers are increasingly facing the same dilemma as PC makers. Product differentiation is only reflected in several aspects: upstream hardware, equipment manufacturing, operating system and application services, the current Android hard

As Android shares continue to grow and system versions evolve, handset makers are increasingly facing the same dilemma as PC makers. Product differentiation is only reflected in several aspects: upstream hardware, equipment manufacturing, operating system and application services, the current Android hardware homogeneity of serious, and software can not form a difference, into a big hit price war, this dilemma and the situation of PC manufacturers is how similar.

Since it is not possible to differentiate between hardware and software, there is only a differentiation on the system, which is the original intention of Android open source. Because Android is open source, OEMs can personalize them, and of course, these customizations are on the system, or they will compromise their compatibility. I think there are several reasons for Android's "customizable" and "not customizable".

First, it would be contradictory to achieve differentiation on the same platform, as Microsoft has never allowed the OEM to modify windows, and unscrupulous modifications to Android will not be able to enjoy Google services, and it is clear that Amazon's long-standing practice has infuriated Google, Being excluded from the Open Alliance by Google, Amazon's customization is not an Android issue, but a problem for Google. At the beginning of the establishment of Android, Google, in addition to providing the system, also provides additional software and cloud services, just four or five years ago, it is not clear how much business, but now without these, basically is a function machine, in the eyes of ordinary consumers, The ability to provide these services (except for the mainland) is only Amazon (assuming it has) and Microsoft.

Based on the above background, Android handset manufacturers can only be differentiated on the system, and can not modify the bottom of the system, in addition, there are more reasons.

Most vendors are not good at software and services: the ability to develop systems is highly demanding, not overnight. If the software services they add are really great, they will compete directly with third parties, so even if they are really good at software and really do something nice, they have conflicts with other third-party applications. The crux of the matter is that the liberal innovation of the Android Alliance does not need to be endorsed by the Alliance. Well, then, the Android manufacturer will innovate with just a little bit of something, so how can users face the apps that can't be unloaded, and why not give the right of choice to the user? If OEMs make excessive changes to the bottom of the system, it can cause a terrible compatibility failure, and many software will not be able to run on the modified system. Samsung, the biggest maker of the Android camp, has no one to buy if Samsung recklessly modifies the bottom floor without any regard for compatibility. So OEMs can only do what they have to do.

The difference manifests the place quietly to change, from one to another (may also be to the new layer), in the past, OEM manufacturer's own software is often the core selling point, Nokia's S40 is holding this selling point to die does not let go. But to the platform increasingly unified today, the level of differentiation has changed, manufacturers are not willing to show their skills in software, but also want to be on the system layer, in the face of Google has more power of speech.

And the same tangled mobile operators as OEM manufacturers, if the time goes back to 2000, they are sure to be aware of the trend of mobile Internet, and indeed they are accurately predicting the great change, but they are overly confident that the reform will be led by them, wrongly estimating the situation, Differentiated innovation layers move up, but they don't touch. As a result, they face the same situation as the OEM manufacturers:

operators bad marketing They are good at these services, but their rivals are better than them, and many of their rivals have become pipe operators, driving others ' cars and stepping on your way

Operators are in worse shape, the internet is not at all the battlefield they are good at, they can't compete with apps, they can't build a video-sharing site, they can't develop a messaging app, even if they can, they're buried in hundreds of rival products. For example, there is a reputable water plant, ready to enter the Coke business, it thinks that there is a water pipe, there is a tanker, even if it can provide a good coke, it is only different containers of cola, the essence of ordinary cola.

Vertical analysis of an industry reveals that innovation can be differentiated at different levels. In this Datong world, only at one level has its own unique personality can be innovation. To this end, the layout of the upstream components of Samsung is thoughtful, almost to provide all the parts of their mobile phones, from the Exynos processor to the SA screen, Samsung can be self-sufficient, in terms of cost and personality and rivals to form an advantage, in contrast to this is Dell, Conscientious in accordance with the standards of Wintel production of compatible machines, the main focus on efficient channels.

PC and Smart machine as a terminal, but the system is the most direct consumer to face the diversity of innovation, for this reason, OEM manufacturers have been fighting with the system provider. This is a very tangled problem, it is not only consistent with the system, but also reflect their unique personality, difficult to measure. All in all, this is the OEM manufacturers and operators thought it should be done by their own, and now Google did, and their hearts have grievances, their own in vain for system providers to provide piping and hardware.

There are still many OEM vendors from the price and geographical provision of interesting differences, many mobile phones hovering in the mid-range, but in the past two years has emerged more and more than 100 of dollars of mobile phones, and geographically, operators like Micromax, Karbonn, Blu and Wiko also in accordance with the situation in the country's bustling. In fact, this is Dell's strategy, never to meddle in the business that is not good, but to focus on the areas of expertise.

These social platforms, which remind me of Facebook,facebook's integration, are being sorted vertically by the smart machines, gradually replacing reliance on traditional desktops, and any software on Facebook's social platform can choose Facebook as a passport. So those who kidnap users through custom services, although they offer great service, indirectly deprive them of other functional services. The creation of such services does not require too much capacity, no requirements for the type of company, and if the provision of quality services to create a win-lose, but the type of company has strict requirements, it is clear that Facebook provides a portal to indirectly create a lot of good products, but so far, No other product has been on Facebook as a social application, but it's just another container of cola.