Print 40 comment(s) - last by fteoath64.. on Aug 16 at 9:36 AM

Samsung reportedly want to “enhance the Tizen ecosystem.”

It looks as though the Samsung Z (SM-Z910F) Tizen-based smartphone may never become commercially available. Samsung stumbled in early July when it failed to launch the smartphone at a press event in Russia.
Samsung’s Russian officials weren’t exactly brimming with enthusiasm about the smartphone, with Dmitry Anosov stating, “The most obvious advantage [of developing for the Tizen phone] is that you’ll be at the top in a half empty store on a decent premium device.”
The Russian forfeiture came shortly after Samsung cancelled plans to launch the smartphone in Japan. Then in late July, Samsung announced that it would further delay the launch of the “Z” in order to “enhance the Tizen ecosystem.”

Samsung Z
Now, according to Tizen Experts, the launch of the Samsung Z has been completely shelved and the company will instead focus on two lower-spec Tizen smartphones instead: the SM-Z130H and SM-130E.
The two budget-minded smartphones are seen as Samsung’s best hope to fend off competition from companies like Xiaomi in China. Xiaomi slipped jumped past Samsung to take first place in the China with 14 percent of the smartphone market. Samsung is now battling it out with Lenovo and Yulong for second place, each of with holding 12 percent of the smartphone market.
With that said, even Samsung’s efforts to bring Tizen to low- and mid-range smartphones will be for naught if the company can’t convince enough developers to deliver apps for the platform. Windows Phone has been around since late 2010, and the Windows Phone Store just recently surpassed the 300,000-app mark. However, people still knock the operating system for not having popular apps that many people take for granted on iOS and Android platforms.
The Tizen situation would be far worse.

Sources: Tizen Experts, via Pocket Now, PC World

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Still not surprising.
By Sam07 on 8/12/2014 10:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
Positioning Tizen for the mid to low end is a much more conservative strategy with a higher chance of succeeding or at least not failing. Considering Tizen is entering the market pretty much after everyone else has already thrown in their hats, they need a foolproof plan and aiming high was asking for Tizen to turn into another WP or worse, Meego.

Anyway, the market strategy shouldn't really be surprising considering Samsung started off in the US by selling low to mid range phones until they developed brand recognition and able to sell higher end devices. So it shouldn't be surprising that they're going to stick with what's worked for them before.

Anyways, I've been looking into buying a Samsung or even Nokia phone and I've been following Tizen with passive interest so it should be interesting in following the news of the OS for the next few years. I really wanted Meego to succeed so hopefully the odd love child of Meego with Samsung/Bada won't be half bad.

RE: Still not surprising.
By name99 on 8/13/2014 3:22:57 PM , Rating: 5
I'd put it differently.
Successful products solves a CUSTOMER's problem. Unsuccessful products (attempt to) solve the SELLER's problem.

No customer is complaining: "damn, between iOS, Android and WP, there just isn't an OS that meets my strange needs". Tizen exists PURELY because Samsung has delusions that it can escape from Google's control. Which means it's already a failed product.
And this is never going to change until Samsung can articulate some GENUINE problem that Tizen solves better than iOS, Android, and WP.

This is not INHERENTLY impossible. For example, one niche that is currently very poorly served is providing a developer environment that is COMPLETELY localized. The development language would use local language keywords+grammatical structures, the names of all the framework functions would be localized, etc.
But let's face it, Samsung is not going to be the company that provides a whole wave of superior dev tools...

RE: Still not surprising.
By retrospooty on 8/13/2014 3:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Successful products solves a CUSTOMER's problem. Unsuccessful products (attempt to) solve the SELLER's problem."

This... Samsung and Microsoft in particular (and a few others as well) need to get this motto and put in up on their internal planning boards.

RE: Still not surprising.
By Sam07 on 8/13/2014 4:17:37 PM , Rating: 1
I think you'd be surprised how many people don't want to be locked into a system vendor and considering iOS is still stuck with the same basic iPhone 1 OS and Android is becoming kludgier with every iteration I welcome the addition of a new, monolithic OS kernal built from the ground up with modern sensibilities in mind.

Serving a niche market is for small players. It works for Apple because their marketing has been so good at selling to a very particular type of consumer and has grown due to their own inertia. Selling to the mass market, who don't care about what the developers want, aren't brand loyal and want a device that just works is the main market. One every device maker today is trying to woo. Also, much like the article stated it makes perfect sense to sell to the crowd who don't purchase apps as much since you need a userbase in order to attract developers in the first place. In this case, the userbase is the egg and the developers are the chicken.

RE: Still not surprising.
By fteoath64 on 8/16/2014 9:36:43 AM , Rating: 2
As people become more aware of the privacy invasion potential of Android and IOS, some might want a seek a more secure mobile OS similar to Android, so Tizen might come close. Only problem is native apps for the most popular services out there needs to be in place or else users cannot even have a reasonable start. Both Android and IOS spoils users in the availability of reasonably good free software to get started. Doing so on a new OS is always hard. Ask BlackBerry that. Samsung should have bought BB when it was going real cheap before. They missed a huge opportunity unfortunately as it would have conflicted with Tizen which was on development for some time.

By msheredy on 8/12/2014 5:06:29 PM , Rating: 5
Ha Ha!

/Nelson voice

Market Fragmentation
By coburn_c on 8/13/2014 10:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone complains when software version fragment the market, yet the sheep cheer when some patent dodging, Samsung money making, garbage fragments the market even further... because it's new and the fool loves novelty.

By pixelslave on 8/13/2014 4:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I think all the talk about tension b/w Samsung and Google is way way overblown -- it's hard to develop a mobile ecosystem. It's even harder to do it TODAY. Samsung's executives would be idiots if they don't realize that. Developing Tizen as a backup plan is one thing, developing it to replace Android is an entirely different thing!

By tonyswash on 8/12/14, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch
By retrospooty on 8/12/2014 5:20:40 PM , Rating: 3
They just signed a 10 year deal with Google a few months ago. They aren't trying to break free. Making Android phones has brought Samsung countless billions in profit. Why on earth would they want to change that?

RE: Ouch
By quiksilvr on 8/12/2014 6:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
Because they are feeling the pressure from all of these nonsensical patent disputes. By having an operating system to call their own they have a slew of benefits (for them, not us):
1) No longer pressured to update their OS based off of Android's schedule.
2) No longer "skin" over an OS. Simply have their own OS to run with fewer layers.
3) Can provide Samsung exclusive features that make them stand out when compared to Android.
4) Can finally be like Apple and be closed off and more profitable.

RE: Ouch
By retrospooty on 8/12/2014 6:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Because they are feeling the pressure from all of these nonsensical patent disputes"

What disputes? The ones that they have paid zero $ for so far and have been dropped in all countries but the US (btw, Apple suing Samsung, not Google for android).

1. How is that going to help them? They arent as good or as fast as Google. It would slow things up tremendously.
2. OK, but again, they dont have the programming talent Google has. The one thing they have shows in willingness to bloat the hell out of thier products with TONS of useless features.
3. Same as last answer. Samsung's features are the least used things on their phones. That just isn't Samsungs skillset.
4. Samsung has been tremendously profitable with Android. Slowing down lately due to increased competition on the Android side. 3 years ago, Samsung was the best thing going in the "non apple" world. Today, they are 5th among 5 top Android vendors as far as the best products out there. JG, HTC, Sony, and arguably Moto are all making better phones. That is why they are slowing.

Overall I would agree if it was Samsungs skillset to make thier own OS and apps that could excel. But just looking at the heinous mess they do on top of Android, bloating it out with crapware that no-one uses it just isn't in their "wheelhouse" so to speak. They would be far better off laying off the entire software team and ship Vanilla Android. Less programming involved, faster better phones and no additional headaches.

RE: Ouch
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch
By tonyswash on 8/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2014 8:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
Horrible case of NOT getting the context of someone's post, all too common here.

Quicksilver is asserting that pushing Tizen would help Samsung avoid the "patent disputes" that they've had with Android.

I'm simply, correctly, pointing out the flaw in his logic. It would avoid them nothing. Because Samsung simply doesn't have the "warchest" of software patents it would need in order to do so.

The state of software patents is such that it would be impossible for Tizen to NOT run afoul of others software patents.

You've somehow read my post and found a contradiction that DOESN'T exist. Because you've taken my post OUT. OF. CONTEXT.

As I explained elsewhere in this thread non-hardware innovation is difficult and constrained in the 'official' Android system.

Except as a poster here has pointed out, you've consistently resorted to the same LIE to back up your argument. Google partners are NOT as constrained as you've "explained". You've made up restrictions that don't exist.

RE: Ouch
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2014 8:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
A great example is Amazon's monopoly on "One-Click" payments. You would assume that patent is VERY specific, and would allow a competitor to come up with a way to implement a similar payment system without infringing on Amazon's patent. Right? I mean that seems logical.

Wrong! Because of how software patents work, it's IMPOSSIBLE for someone to come up with a similar payment system without violating Amazon's.

This is just one of millions of examples how software patents harm innovation and hurt competition. You're a complete trolling SHILL to dare claim otherwise.

RE: Ouch
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/13/2014 12:23:46 PM , Rating: 1
You've somehow read my post and found a contradiction that DOESN'T exist. Because you've taken my post OUT. OF. CONTEXT.
That's nothing new with him.

RE: Ouch
By retrospooty on 8/13/2014 12:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, there is a lot of "wishful thinking" in his posts. I recall not even a year ago Android was a "disaster" for Google and Tizen was the beginning of the end of Android. I know he wanted that, but it wasn't going to happen. Not by a mile.

Android will fade into history when and only when something better, and totally open to any OEM comes along that knocks it off its perch - alone at the top for now.

RE: Ouch
By distinctively on 8/12/2014 6:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't sign in here very much but I had to offer agreement to retrospooty's post. Samsung can keep a working relationship with Apple so they can do the same with Google. They are not idiots. They have higher sales than Google, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, etc. They have no need to break free of anyone.

RE: Ouch
By tonyswash on 8/12/14, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch
By Banana Bandit on 8/12/2014 8:22:00 PM , Rating: 1
The above tl;dr aside, I don't see Samsung breaking off their partnership with Google any time in the next decade. I don't care how much money you think they are losing. Their Android-based products are simply bringing in way too much money for then to turn away from it.

Sure they may test the water with different platforms. Any smartphone maker has to if they want to compete. That's called R&D.

The Samsung/Google marriage is staying right where it is and that my friends is a cold hard fact that the apple crowd is just gonna have to swallow. Sorry fruit fans, Samsung/Google is going to continue to compete hard against your heroes.

Deal with it.

RE: Ouch
By amanojaku on 8/12/2014 8:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
The above tl;dr aside
Actually, you SHOUDLN'T dismiss tony's post, because it is patently false. He's switched recently from solely promoting Apple to outright lying by saying you must bundle ALL of Google's services to sell an Android device. Last month I provided a link to Google's FAQ disproving his claim, and he called it nonsense. He's ignoring the fact that you don't have to be a member of the Open Handset Alliance to sell Android phones with Google's services. The only thing you'd lack is access to Google Play, which is not a deal-breaker. The guy is now calling black white, eliminating any credibility he had left.

RE: Ouch
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/12/2014 9:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
He's ignoring the fact
He is just an Apple PR mouthpiece. Nothing more. It's obvious. The way he posts, the articles he post, he obviously spends a LOT OF time doing this and for what?

RE: Ouch
By Banana Bandit on 8/13/2014 6:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
hehe, it's a living.
I'm sure Apple pays him well to shill their products on tech sites like DT.

RE: Ouch
By Alexvrb on 8/13/2014 2:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, you can sell Android without bundling their services. But it without them, a device wouldn't sell as well in developed nations. If you want any part of Google Play Services then you need to take the bundle. It IS a deal breaker for many consumers. In China it probably doesn't matter though.

Why would you join the OHA, anyway, if you don't need to? There's the "compatibility" testing and GPS licensing process, and if you join OHA things go a lot smoother. However, you can't sell an Android fork if you join OHA. Ask Acer about Aliyun. Or ask Amazon which companies are even legally allowed to build Fire phones.

RE: Ouch
By amanojaku on 8/13/2014 8:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
Here's what's available in Google Play Services:

1) Games
2) Location
3) Google+
4) Maps
5) Drive
6) Cast
7) Ads
8) Wallet
9) In-app billing
10) Cloud messaging
11) Cloud save
12) Distribution

Of the listed items, consumers only care about Games, Maps, Drive, and Cast.

I've never heard of anyone interested in location services, especially with all the privacy issues today. Google+ is not popular. No one (sane) wants ads. Wallet hasn't caught on, and is still limited in availability. No one buys a phone because of in-app billing or cloud messaging from app sellers. No consumer knows what cloud save or distribution are.

The Games services are not crucial to the devices themselves. Many companies offer their own games services because of the need to support Android, iOS and Windows Phone, and maybe even PC ports. Maps (and other apps) is available as a separate app (unless you're on Windows, seems like the beef isn't over). There are alternatives to Drive. And Cast is quite new, so I doubt a significant portion of Android purchases consider it.

As to the Open Handset Alliance, you join because membership allows you to contribute to Android directly and because it helps ensure app compatibility. You may not care about contributing to Android, and you can ensure compatibility by using as much of the freely available source code as possible.

And, yeah, Google pulled a d*ck move banning OHA manufacturers from even providing handsets to 3rd parties. In the early days of Android that made sense, but today that's a joke. Even Amazon's FireOS is compatible with Android 4.x. Although there are ways around this. Samsung, an OHA member, manufactures Barnes & Noble's Nook, an Android fork.

RE: Ouch
By tonyswash on 8/13/14, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch
By amanojaku on 8/13/2014 10:15:47 AM , Rating: 3
Where in my post did I agree with you? On the contrary, I was quite vocal in DISAGREEING with you.

Actually, I called you out on your BS.
If you step outside the OHA and Google services life becomes difficult, challenging and complex
Not at all. Because the links I provided lead you to the full Android source code, the compatibility test suite (which anyone can run), and an example of a fork that fully supports a current version of the Android standard. Anyone can do it. Few have tried.
you (the OEM) now have to come up with alternative services that are at least as good as (and arguably need to to be better than) Google stock versions or see your device at a disadvantage in the market
Interesting. So you appear to place some value on Google's offerings, after all. Quite a bit of value, actually, since you assert that Google is the standard which competing offerings should seek to meet and exceed. After all, there are competing ecosystems that a company could license. You'd go with Google, eh?
My point remains valid, the structure of the Android OS ecosystem, and Google's role in it, make differentiation of devices via OS and service/ecosystem innovation difficult
Yes, and that is precisely the point of the OHA - to promote a consistent Android experience across all devices. That's the reason for the ban on modifications, to ensure that software made for Android runs on Android without fail. You join the Alliance knowing that.

The Alliance is also OPEN. You have the ability to contribute to Android, so you can make whatever modifications you want at the source provided it can be implemented as an optional feature. That's the reason Sense and TouchWiz deserve to get the boot, because they aren't optional.

By the way... Sense? TouchWiz? DIFFERENTIATION.
it makes earning additional revenues from a service and ecosystem stack difficult.
Nonsense. Companies aren't earning revenues from a service and ecosystem stack because they don't know HOW. They're used to selling hardware through big box retailers and online stores. They have no idea how to manage thousands, if not millions, of accounts. How to secure data. How to design enterprise and consumer APIs and SDKs. These companies are used to selling appliances, that's why they partnered with Google. Google makes the money off of software and services, these guys make the money selling more expensive appliances, e.g., phones.

You don't like the strangle-hold Google has on Android? You have access to the full source and compatibility test suites. All you have to do is demonstrate that Android apps run on your platform and developers will release to your ecosystem, as well.

RE: Ouch
By melgross on 8/13/2014 10:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, most of those services are integrated into third party apps, even though you don't know they are, such as location services, which, despite your saying so, is extremely important to most people.

Without Google's services, you've got nothing. You've got AOSP, which isn't even allowed to be called Android. Google's been removing more services from AOSP over time, as they want to kill it.

RE: Ouch
By retrospooty on 8/13/2014 11:35:02 AM , Rating: 2
AOSP is still called Android, and the Google services is available for all ASOP ROM's. It's just a separate download, you load your AOSP ROM and then install the GAPPS package and you are 100% Googlin'

RE: Ouch
By melgross on 8/13/2014 11:52:58 AM , Rating: 2
No. It's not officially called Android. Google doesn't allow it. And show me where an AOSP device uses Google's services. The question is where you get that ROM from. Manufacturers pay Google for those services.

RE: Ouch
By retrospooty on 8/13/2014 11:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
It's still Android 4.4.4 updated immediatly, and they ALL have Google Apps. Paranoid Android, Cyanogenmod, AOKP, all of them. You get it right along with the ROM.

"Dont forget to flash GAPPS" - it has play store, maps, and all the others.

RE: Ouch
By retrospooty on 8/13/2014 12:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
I should add that these Google apps and services, G+, Maps, Play store, and all the others, are not hacked, or swindled. It is 100% legal, and fully allowed and updated by Google.

You haven't actually used a 3rd party/AOSP ROM have you?

RE: Ouch
By melgross on 8/14/2014 4:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about manufacturers, not enthusiasts.

RE: Ouch
By retrospooty on 8/12/2014 11:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
Tony is a good guy, but not very grounded in the real world... As if championing a company online wasnt clue enough.

RE: Ouch
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/13/2014 12:42:15 PM , Rating: 1
but not very grounded in the real world
As if that wasn't painfully obvious long ago.

RE: Ouch
By retrospooty on 8/12/2014 11:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Again, you really dont seem to get what goes on in the real world outside of your Applesphere.

As I said in that other post, software isn't Samsungs strength. Thier software sucks, badly. Going "in house" would ruin them, they just arent good at it. Samsungs in a bit of a slide now due to their competitors raising their games, while Samsung got conservative... That is it and that is all. The obvious fix is to make better phones. Right now LG, Sony, HTC, and arguably Moto are making better more exciting products.

RE: Ouch
By BabelHuber on 8/13/2014 5:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
You are spot on.

What a lot of people do not seem to grasp is that a smartphone OS needs all the additional features customers got used to!


- An App store actually filled with the Apps people need
- Some navigation software (e.g. Google Maps, Nokia HERE)
- Apps for services a lot of people use (Youtube, Facebook, WhatsApp etc.)

So when a company wants to release a forked version of Android, they can do so as long as they aren't a member of the OHA.

Just look at Amazon's tablet offerings. They had to implement own services to replace the Google ones, while at the same time basically losing Android compatibility (no Play store!)

This is no easy endeavor, it is much cheaper to just join the OHA and use an official Android-version.

And this does not even take into account the POS (Point of Sales) problems:

When you sell phones, you want to sell those with a low return rate, because you have less work with those.

Hence the typical seller does not want to sell phones with lots of missing features which are returned a day later. Instead, you sell the phones customers usually are satisfied with - this means Android phones and iPhones.

It is very tough to compete with those - just ask Microsoft. They have spend Billions of Dollars just to get 3% global market share with Windows Phone. Would you want to follow this approach?

RE: Ouch
By Omega215D on 8/13/2014 6:44:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree here as well. Even their MP3 players had software issues/ hiccups but the hardware and sound was incredible (YP-P2 & P3, YP-R0). Then when I bought a used Droid Charge (as a backup to my HTC Thunderbolt) there would be some hiccups with the browser and Maps though the UI was decently smooth. I bought the S3 and found that it too suffered a bit in the UI and some Google programs but those issues were ironed out later on down the road.

With the Galaxy S5 things improved tremendously and TouchWiz barely gets in the way.

Hardware-wise Samsung is definitely up there with the flagships and maybe even ahead a bit but the build quality needs to be improved (Nokia, HTC and LG can make heavy duty plastic phones and Samsung in the past has shown it can do so as well).

RE: Ouch
By tonyswash on 8/13/14, Rating: -1
"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki