Andy Rubin, who created Android and has led its development both at Android Inc. and later at Google, has decided to step down as the big Android boss at Google. Having created the world’s “most-used mobile operating system”, as Google CEO Larry Page refers to it, I’d say his stint has been successful. Interestingly enough, he will be succeeded by Sundar Pichai – Chrome OS boss. Yes.
Google bought Android Inc. in 2005, after first supporting it financially. Andy Rubin, who founded Android Inc. and acted as its CEO, came along to Google, and led the Android effort ever since. Today, Page unveiled, Android is backed by an industry partnership consisting of 60 hardware partners, who, together, have sold 750 million
Android devices. Pretty nifty for what started out as a then-insane dream of an industry-wide open source mobile operating system.
What’s most interesting is that Sundar Pichai, who leads the Chrome and Chrome OS efforts, will take over Rubin’s post – but without leaving Chrome and Chrome OS behind. People have often wondered where Google’s dual-operating system strategy would end up, and it seems we now know.
I think the ChromeBook Pixel is now showing its true colours. I don’t expect Android to become Chrome OS – but I do expect Chrome OS gaining the ability to run Android applications. All of a sudden, the Pixel’s specifications start to make sense, and the idea of being able to run Android applications alongside Chrome inside Chrome OS makes the platform a lot more appealing.
After a successful decade of Android, I think it makes sense to refresh the people at the top. Nothing’s worse than a leader who doesn’t know when to quit.
~A la Firefox OS.
Now if only Microsoft would get the hint to invest more into Internet Explorer. Live Tile notification support is nice but we need more web integration (Web activities, etc…))
slightly offtopic, but:
What mobile IE needs is not support for yet another emerging “web standard” but for the architects and developers to f….ing dogfood it for a month. No PCs, no tablets, no nothing, just mobile IE. Then we’d have SOME hope that the utter pile of cow dung that is mobile IE usability wise gets any better.
I apologize if my comment carries a slight bitter scent but that’s how it is. Purchased a Win8 phone recently and due to all the glowing reviews (the best IE yet, all standards support and mega-awesomeness) expected something nice, but got a steaming pile of manure that cannot hold more than 6 tabs open at once (on a device with a friggin’ gigabyte of memory!!), cannot fit a webpage on a screen so that one shouldn’t scroll oneself to madness while trying to read a webpage, that can’t open tabs in the background etc.
There’s NO way on Gods green earth that the developers have used that browser more than just to show off for a couple of minutes on a trade show (just as I was fooled for a few minutes when trying it in the store).
dixi et animam levavi
Edited 2013-03-13 19:16 UTC
I’m using a HTC 8S (not a high end device by any means) and I’m really pleased with IE10. It’s really speedy and renders everything quite well. I give you that you should be able to open tabs in the background, but that’s just a minor annoyance.
Edit: Thinking about it, IE might just be one of the few Windows Phone 8 apps that doesn’t suck.
Edited 2013-03-15 07:18 UTC
I always liked to hear Sundar Pichai’s talks. Let’s see where this is headed, by so far I’m optimistic. Even if you are not an Android fan, you can’t argue about the benefits it has brought to the mobile industry as an open platform.
I’ll still cling to my N900, though.
Sergey and I first heard about Android back in 2004, when Andy Rubin came to visit us at Google. He believed that aligning standards around an open-source operating system would drive innovation across the mobile industry. Most people thought he was nuts.
Turned out he was
But his insight immediately struck a chord because at the time it was extremely painful developing services for mobile devices. We had a closet full of more than 100 phones and were building our software pretty much device by device. It was nearly impossible for us to make truly great mobile experiences.
So we stole a lot of code from Sun which luckily had a management about to throw in the towel and and who didn’t have a clue what we were up to.
Fast forward to today. The pace of innovation has never been greater, and Android is the most used mobile operating system in the world: we have a global partnership of over 60 manufacturers; more than 750 million devices have been activated globally; and 25 billion apps have now been downloaded from Google Play. Pretty extraordinary progress for a decade^aEURTMs work.
We are not going to talk about Android as a business, about how much it has cost us and how it’s still costing us, and how little money we have made from it. We believe in making all the world’s data available to everyone except for how much we spend on Android, how much we make on Android, how many Nexus devices we have sold^aEUR|^aEUR|..
Having exceeded even the crazy ambitious goals we dreamed of for Android^aEUR”and with a really strong leadership team in place^aEUR”Andy^aEURTMs decided it^aEURTMs time to hand over the reins and start a new chapter at Google. Andy, more moonshots please!
Andy – it’s time to fuck off and die. Look on the plus side, you get to share an office with Eric Schmidt. All those stories about him are not true by the way.
Going forward, Sundar Pichai will lead Android, in addition to his existing work with Chrome and Apps. Sundar has a talent for creating products that are technically excellent yet easy to use^aEUR”and he loves a big bet. Take Chrome, for example. In 2008, people asked whether the world really needed another browser. Today Chrome has hundreds of millions of happy users and is growing fast thanks to its speed, simplicity and security. So while Andy^aEURTMs a really hard act to follow, I know Sundar will do a tremendous job doubling down on Android as we work to push the ecosystem forward.
Let’s talk about Chrome, forget Android, that’s so yesterday. Android cost how much?!
Today we^aEURTMre living in a new computing environment. People are really excited about technology and spending a lot of money on devices. This is driving faster adoption than we have ever seen before. The Nexus program^aEUR”developed in conjunction with our partners Asus, HTC, LG and Samsung^aEUR”has become a beacon of innovation for the industry, and services such as Google Now have the potential to really improve your life.
Don’t mention Motorola. Don’t spook Samsung.
We^aEURTMre getting closer to a world where technology takes care of the hard work^aEUR”discovery, organization, communication^aEUR”so that you can get on with what makes you happiest^aEUR| living and loving.
We still don’t know what to do about Samsung taking all the fucking profits from Android, that was never part of our game plan.
It^aEURTMs an exciting time to be at Google.
If only we could bank excitement we could make as much from Android as Samsung have. We blame Andy. Want to try on these weird looking glasses?
I am still wondering if Google eventually transitions from Java based environment to something else as result from the issues with Oracle.
Maybe this will be part of such transition.
I hope so, as long as the “something else” isn’t Dart/GWT.
Dart for native applications would be quite nice, a kind of Smalltalk feel to native applications.
Now for GWT I fully agree with you.
As for Go, although I did create an issue for NDK support, I hope it does not become the main language, unless they get around adding generics.
Edited 2013-03-13 21:32 UTC
Why generics? Go has interface types for polymorphism.
Personally, for client-side GUI development I’d prefer something more along the lines of Python or Ruby. Or Moonscript! In a perfect world, provide a LuaJIT runtime for compilers to target, providing a more flexible platform like JVM or CLR.
Edited 2013-03-13 21:58 UTC
Performance and avoidance of type casts everywhere in what is supposed to be generic code.
Go mailing list has almost a new thread every day about these type of issues.
I prefer languages that allow for a combination of AOT compilation for distribution and a JIT for development time.
Sadly there aren’t many with such type of implementation available in the mainstream.
Google would solve its issues if it went with Mono and their excellent Android bindings.
It ticks off every check box. (And as an added bonus, ticks off some fanatics out there, which obviously makes me happy)
Not really. Between Microsoft and Oracle, I’m not sure who I’d rather have after me.
Edited 2013-03-14 04:22 UTC
Good to see I was right about it ticking off the fanatics.
Sorry to disappoint, but I’m not a fanatic. I don’t care if Android were to go to Mono or not (I don’t even like Android), but the fact that you immediately labeled my response says a lot more about you than me. I meant it though, Mono is probably not a sound tactic as far as legal minefields go. I know of no legally binding documents by Microsoft saying they will not come after Mono. C# yes, that language can certainly be used and I’d have no objection to Google adopting C# as it’s a hell of a lot better than Java, but you specifically said Mono which could carry a lot of patent baggage relating to .net and the CLR among others. Sure, Microsoft have “promised” not to enforce their patents, but that’s not a signed contract and would hold no legal authority should they change their mind in the future. Given the protection money they already extort from Android device makers, do you really think they wouldn’t decide to do something similar if Google adopted Mono? The only way Google could safely adopt C# is to do exactly what they did with Java: adopt the language but create a completely custom framework and vm around it. Microsoft could do absolutely nothing about it, and Google V. Oracle already sets the precedent for this.
By all means, if you know of any legally binding documents Microsoft have given in this matter, due tell. I’m not interested in their good will promises, I want to see proper legal documents. Without these, Google would be stupid to adopt Mono.
I’m not sure that you understand the law, and the fact that you think yourself qualified enough to make such statements is especially intriguing.
A promissory statement is still protected by the full weight of the law, and in fact the promisee (which in this case is everyone) is legally protected by contract law.
You’d also be covered under promissory estoppel.
No. For reasons above. Microsoft doesn’t extort money from Android. Microsoft collects payment from OEMs which wish deem Microsoft’s IP valid enough to license.
This is currently a majority of Android vendors. In fact, in light of this, even if your primitive interpretation of the law was valid, OEMs would simply negotiate a license with Microsoft and add the terms to their already existing agreement.
Google V. Oracle is far from completely litigated, the ink on the ruling has not even had time to dry. There are very strong arguments for API definitions being copyright-able works.
Google would be stupid to listen to you.
“A promissory statement is still protected by the full weight of the law, and in fact the promisee (which in this case is everyone) is legally protected by contract law.”
How do you prove “Microsoft” ever said that ? Did someone get the word of some people from Microsoft, what does this say about Microsoft management ? What does that say about Microsoft management in the future ?
Did it only apply to Microsofts offering they had then or also all the newer C#/.Net stuff Microsoft created after that point in time ?
Edited 2013-03-14 09:29 UTC
http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/communit…
And I quote
The terms of the community promise are very clear. Why I have to hold your hand for something which takes a second to look up is beyond me. Why I have to dispel this stupid myth every time Mono comes up is similarly perplexing.
I find it “intriguing” that you use such bold statements and in the last sentence use such low level tone.
It is also perplexing that you so strongly “dispel” any doubts related to immunity against litigation based on promises from MS and, at same time, raise uncertainty and deny such benefit to Google x Oracle case, where there were also a promise from the top executive (from Sun).
Why? Am I supposed to be appreciative of the fact that the same people sling the same FUD every single time a discussion on Mono is brought up? Despite the fact that this rumor has been smashed, as in provable shown to be wrong, every single one of those times.
They’ll say something next about how it still is a given that Mono is covered under this promise, despite the fact that such patent non aggression promises are made for other standards, including some incorporated by the W3C. That’s usually where the discussion trails off.
This is so predictable that its annoying.
No. You just have a false equivalency going on. The estoppel equitable defense that Google tried to use was a single statement from a CEO, not an official stance taken by the company.
He seems to be a loner in that sentiment, considering it wasn’t the views held by many prominent people within the company either, and in fact, beyond his single blog post, there was no other mention of it from Sun.
Contrast this with a clear cut statement from Microsoft on a page with a bunch of other standards which are offered under that same promise. Press releases were also sent out the day they were announced.
Because I oppose an estoppel defense in one instance because of very peculiar circumstances, does not mean I oppose it in all instances. That doesn’t make sense.
At least it looks official.
I would personally never develop anything with Mono or C# for that matter.
So this entire thing was just a concern troll? It is a shame that you slander the hard work of countless developers (as well as hold back potential discussion, and others who hold similar views have likely stopped progress in this area) because of your own irrational dislike of Mono and .NET .
Your argument that Microsoft, who regularly hosts the Mono team at various Microsoft events, has made two distinct promises, provides them with ahead of time documentation and testing suites, openly sponsors events that Mono hosts, and which has released large swathes of the .NET Framework as open source (new ASP.NET stacks) is somehow out to get Mono is absurd.
Microsoft, which facilitates the port of Unity middleware which uses Mono to power its C# scripting. Microsoft, who actively linked to Moonlight when users requested a Linux Silverlight download.
This, and all arguments like this, are so contrary to the truth that it borders on trolling to hold positions like yours.
I’m not saying anything like that. I’m just saying as a developer I would personally not choose to use Mono.
Why are you feeding the troll? Not even inventive…
What this means for Android is covered in this interesting article
http://blogs.computerworld.com/android/21906/andy-rubin-android
As the author correctly notes it’s not just Rubin’s departure that is a surprise.
“Rubin stepping down at all is a surprise: The now-well-known robot enthusiast co-founded Android as a small startup back in 2003 and has overseen its development ever since. He’s remained the proud papa of the platform from day one, heading up its development at Google (which bought the startup in 2005) and earning the title of “senior vice president of mobile and digital content.”
Even more eyebrow-raising, though, is the nature of Rubin’s replacement. Sundar Pichai already heads up development of both Chrome and Chrome OS as well as a number of apps, including Gmail and Google Calendar — and, perhaps most significant, will continue overseeing those projects while taking on his new Android-oriented responsibilities.
Chrome OS and Android, together at last?
Oh, hello, giant elephant in the room.”
Hey Tony, ArsTechnica posted this story too, are you going to spam them with the exact same comment? Or are you just going to stick to OSAlert and DailyTech?
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=30119&commentid=845577…
I hope you are aware what a blind Apple fanboi that annoying person is…
Google did not steal a darn thing from Sun or Oracle.
Sun open sourced Java! The original argument about a license was for a license to use the Java(tm) logo which google never needed because they don’t advertise Android as being Java. I’ve never seen a java logo on an Android phone or in the OS.
Oracle tried to change the rules after the fact when they sued Google over Java APIs.
What Oracle tried to pull would be like AT&T suing Apple and any other company that used BSD Unix for not having a license for various Unix APIs even though they are following the BSD License.
It was a joke and Oracle deserved to lose.
the only people I’ve ever met who think Oracle had a valid claim are clueless Apple fans who don’t even understand the fscking industry and the damage an Oracle win would have done.
Piss off.
Edited 2013-03-15 18:56 UTC
My wife got 5 ChromeBooks (Samsung Series 5) for her classroom through the Donors Choose program. They were only $99 through there.
Anyway, she got them last week and we were using them trying to figure out what all they can do. They can basically do anything that Chrome can do, which isn’t much.
The Chrome Web store is rife with “applications” that are essentially bookmarks to urls of Flash web pages covered with Flash advertisements.
I was extremely disappointed with them.
For her classroom it will be fine, but if it were my money, (they’re $250 retail), I’d spend a hundred more dollars and get something with a real operating system.
As far as their applications go… I’m not sure NaCl, or even PNaCl is the way to go. Web applications involve too much. CSS, HTML, JavaScript, Server-side code in yet another language.
Ultimately I know that web applications are the most portable across systems since every system has a web browser… I just wish JS wasn’t the standard. I wish LLVM bitcode was the standard and you could code in JS, Python, C, or whatever else your heard desired. PNaCl will be a step towards this but it is still too restrictive and not a standard used by anybody but Chrome.
My netbook had a price tag of 300^a`not and has a full blown operating system running on it with a dual core AMD Brazos APU and a proper graphics card thanks to it.
No way I would replace this for a dumb wannabe laptop.
Actually it has the fastest ARM processor available for end user market. And has no moving parts, so no fans, no HDD.
I installed desktop Linux on it.
Operating systems are free to download and install remember ?
And the graphics card is a joke, a no no for me.
If I don’t want to use a system with the OS it is being sold, why bother to give the company any money?
I’m paying for the hardware of course, it is more than cheap enough that I doubt that anyone is making any money on the OS of a Chromebook.
My Son’s school just ordered a bunch of chromebooks. Most of what they do is through the web anyway. You still have to pay for a good content provider, it’s not like you’re going to find a lot of free, quality educational sites out there. I’d much rather see them pay $100-200 on a low maintenance Chromebook than $1000+ on iMAC’s like many schools. Now if only schools would realize the iPAD isn’t the only tablet out there.
I agree about the Web store, Google needs to clean that up badly. It’s embarrassing.
Depending on regulations in the country, region, or district, the iPad might very well be the only one they can go for right now. I don’t know of any regulations that specify iPads but, in many areas, they do specify certain minimum requirements for educational use. Occasionally those requirements include certain accessibility features (differs by area) for those with vision, motor, or auditory problems. These are all things the iPad (and iOS in general) have where Android’s situation is far murkier and the fragmentation issues impede the use of some or all of these functions. Even in areas where these regulations are not present, iPads are far easier to deploy sight wide than something like an Android tablet, and there is the frequency (or lack there of depending on the OEM) of updates and security patches to consider as well.
Let me see if I get this correct…
1. Schools are spending shitloads of $$$ on manpower and software to lock down expensive laptops so students don’t fill them with games, viruses and spyware.
2. Google gives them very some very low maintenance hardware with excellent security at a extremely good price. Schools are now happy like a dyke in a hardware store.
3. You are a leet wizard who can’t use this for your leet wizardy projects, therefore ChromeOS is a failure?
Your leet wizardy skillz for some reason doesn’t include making google searches? There are tons of articles about dualbooting chromebooks or running full linux in a chroot environment..
Edited 2013-03-13 19:19 UTC
I agree.
The value in being maintenance-free is something that many computer enthusiasts and also some tech journalists have difficulties to grasp.
So you’re agreeing with me…
Thanks?
I said it would be fine for her classroom.
I said it was not for me and I’d go with something else.
Are you surprised that someone on OSAlert would demand more from an operating system?
I never said Chrome OS was a failure, don’t put words in my mouth or infer things.
I said what I said, nothing more.
They’re good for children, and worth every penny if you value security and being locked down.
They’re bad for people with actual computing needs, and overpriced if you’re going to replace ChromeOS with something else.
The picture editor only has “rotate” and “crop”… it didn’t even have red eye reduction. You can’t even Facebook properly on it.
I did not dual boot the machines because they’re not mine and I didn’t want to brick them. To dual boot you need to get into dev mode and replace the bootloader.
I did, however, do the chroot thing which only required dev mode, not replacing the bootloader.
The chroot environment was okay but still had issues due to the hardware. There was no middle clicking to paste and the alt-up alt-down as home and end keys that works in ChromeOS did not translate to the chroot environment.
I met some dude at the airport yesterday that uses ChomeOS as his only computer OS. I found it hard to believe, but is this where we are heading?
There has always been a lot of misrepresentation on the interwebs about which is the most used mobile operating system because Andoid’s mobile phone operating system share is bigger than iOS’s mobile phone operating system share.
But as we all know, mobile phone OSes do not equal mobile OSes.
Andy Rubin is making a false statement when he trots out the most-used reference. This holds true not only for market share that references sales but also in every single statistic I’ve seen that references web tracking code.
From DF:
They do show that iPhone sales are continuing to grow at a pretty fast clip year over year, but that second sentence rankles. It creates the perception that iOS was previously ^aEURoethe most widely used smartphone operating system worldwide^aEUR. I don^aEURTMt believe that was ever the case.
Take a look at this chart from Wikipedia, based on numbers from Gartner. Just talking about operating systems, it^aEURTMs clear that the OS that Android ^aEURoeleapfrogged^aEUR to become the most-used in the world is Symbian. iOS has never even been close to being the market share leader for smartphones. Look at this chart from Horace Dediu showing handset sale numbers and you get an even starker picture of how ^aEURoemarket share^aEUR isn^aEURTMt a relevant measure of the iPhone^aEURTMs success or position in the market, at any point over the last five years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales_Share…
http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/14/google-vs-samsung/
Edited 2013-03-13 23:31 UTC
Please take into account that other parts of the world exist beyond the US.
The last, and only Apple computer I saw in my country was 15 years ago.
*Some* people have iPads and iPhones over here (so I was told, never seen it personally). Believe me, iOS market share is nearly non-existent down here (its Android all over it).
Of course. iOS is larger by a significant margin than any mobile operating system… including android.
I’m not talking about an Apple computer. Why are you bringing this up?
Im not talking anecdotal evidence as you did. I’m talking both market share and usage share… worldwide. iOS is larger than any other mobile operating system.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57556846-37/ios-android-and-web-t…
Edited 2013-03-14 02:18 UTC
iOS isn’t larger by any measure. It’s used more to browse websites.
And just like claiming that iOS devices should be counted as PCs, you are making a statement full of deceit.
It just goes to show you… People buy an Android device to have a smart phone, People buy an iOS device to use a smart phone.
Considering the disparity in #’s alone. the fact that iOS has such a commanding lead in on-line usage is embarrassing to Android. it means the average person who buys an android does not use it on line! Probably because they are intimidated. While people buy an iOS device because it … wait-for-it….”JUST WORKS!”
As an OSS user for coming up on 20 years now, I’m really disappointed in the Android ecosystem.
KRR
Crazy stuff you put down there in writing
I’ve had Android phones for more than 2 years now, and there’s been only a couple of times that I used them “on line!” as you put it, and by that you probably mean some mobile data connection. I used them plenty over wifi, but very seldomly for browsing. I always had a light laptop for doing that (now I used an xps13 for that).
Why not using more the phones’ data plans? Because they are crazy expensive! Especially so if I’d happen to cross borders, which I do quite often.
Intimidated my a**. They just might be a bit over their early teens, have something more to do besides browsing on their mobile devices, or just figured out that those things can be used for more than browsing. So, every stat builder should just stick their mobile browser stats where they want, because there are quite a number of people out there, who do not believe that the number of people browsing from iOS means something.
I’m sorry, then why do my clients(mobile tel.co’s) complain that Android is taking up too much of their mobile traffic?(Interestingly enough, HTML over HTTP isn’t the dominant traffic for Android users)
This latest piece of news only supports what I saw over the last year, monitoring mobile networks in different countries around the world.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/02/27/android-smartp…
I provided evidence showing as much. What have you provided?
I made no such comment (in this thread)
You gave an example where Android users browse the web less – I concur with that.
Then you made a false claim based on data that is no way representative of your statement.
IDC and Gartner say that Android is bigger. Google says that Android is bigger(over 750mil devices activated to date, compared to 550 mil iOS devices).
Android has a larger install base. Android has a larger market share(We’re talking global here).
All corroborated by numerous independent sources.
That was an example of a deceitful statement, I was not even attributing that to you.
There are plenty of iPads and iPhones down here, iOS is more popular than ever.
Yeah, Android rules the cheap phone market but Apple owns the high end market. I think that happens everywhere.
Regarding your Mac bashing comments, I’m posting this with a Mac and there are lots of Mac users (much more than 15 years ago that’s for sure). But It’s the same story… low end market is ruled by PCs but the high end +$1000 market is 100% Macbook.
Since my T430s is well into the over $2000 category, that “high end +$1000 market is 100% Macbook” statement is pulled out of your a**.
Uh, that’s pretty much the definition of more used.
More users == more use.
Or are you saying people buy these phones, keep them in their boxes and never use them?
Web tracking code says zero about mobile OS use, it only says something about mobile OS web browsing.
And because web browsing is the dominant use case of smart phones, it does say something about the use as smart phone OS. I think that android did take over a big share of the market for feature phones with a flexible operating system from Symbian. Theoretically all those mid range Nokia phones could be used to browse the web, install apps etc. but in reality most were used as nice phones. This might also be the case with many cheaper android phones. If this assumption is correct it would mean that Android OS is used on more phones than iOS, but not as smart phone platform but as phone platform.
Just a guess, but the difference between sold phones and web stats must mean something.
edit – but android is still by far the most used mobile os: http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-200902-201302
edit 2 – Not counting tablets. But sitting on your couch isn’t very mobile.
Edited 2013-03-14 10:47 UTC
Andy Rubin likely just felt it was his time to move on, hell, he could be doing something super secret and forward facing within Google beyond Android and completely unrelated to anything currently announced or speculated. This kind of reorganization is common place.
Look for example when Microsoft moved Scott Gu to Windows Azure (and how he completely turned that division around) or when they moved Anders from C# to working on making JS productive and they came out with TypeScript. The big brains in the company are routinely dispatched once the product is mature enough.
The fact that the ChromeOS guy is now in charge was probably a good coincidence for Google. They saw an opportunity to move towards more alignment which can only be good for Android and ChromeOS.
Here’s to the future.