It looks like the feature filled Moto X and the insanely cheap Moto G
will not be the only smartphones being offered by Motorola soon.
Motorola has sent out
invites to an event in London on May 13th to unveil another budget
focused smartphone. Recent leaks have pointed to the Moto E, a 4.3-inch
phone with a 720p display, a 1.2GHz dual-core processor, and 1GB of RAM.
If this phone is anything like the Moto G, users can expect replaceable
backs and customization options for an inexpensive but personalized
experience.
Rumors place this phone at $100 which would make it one of the least
expensive phones on the market, but Motorola also describes the phone as
“made to last” which could suggest ruggedization of some kind.
The Moto E isn’t the only phone Motorola is expected to announce this
year. The Moto X+1 is expected to be available later this year as a
successor to the first phone Motorola made as a Google company. This
announcement comes on the heels of Motorola announcing a sale on the Moto X
through their online retailer. While it’s unlikely the X+1 would be
announced on the 13th, Motorola’s invitation is clearly aimed at price
as the driving factor for people to be interested in the phone.
Budget markets were clearly the right place for Motorola to attack with the Moto G,
but the decision to go even lower with the Moto E shows that they had
more success in this area than they originally expected to. Motorola is
going to keep pushing new devices into markets plagued by companies
releasing so-called Mini variants of their existing flagships, which is
only good news for consumers who don’t care about which phone is the
best.
Google is currently facing a lawsuit that many have suggested would
be on the way for over a year now. The seemingly forced union of Google
Mobile Services and Android has spawned questions about the
anti-competitive nature of these policies.
The open nature of Android, and more specifically Google, is going to be called into question in a court of law soon. We know that Google asks a great deal of manufacturers if they want access to Google Apps and Google Play Services, including specific placement of Google products on the homescreen and recently even a “powered by Android” logo in the boot screen. The lawsuit being brought against Google accuses the company of wielding these agreements to be anti-competitive, and is seeking an injunction against the company to stop this from happening.
It has been said time and time again that if you want to use Google’s apps on your version of Android, you need to follow Google’s rules. The Google Mobile Services agreement is largely a secret between Android OEMs and Google, but over the last year several details surrounding the agreement have leaked out and caused an increasing amount of commotion surrounding just how “open” Android really is.
While there are no smartphones running Android that are both free of Google Mobile Services and actually selling in any significant volume, the same can not be said for tablets. Amazon in particular has carved a niche out for themselves with the Kindle Fire and Fire TV devices, both of which run Android and are completely free of Google apps and services. If the rumors of an Amazon smartphone are true, the company will have Google free versions of Android in three key markets, serving as a prime example that you can have Android without Google and be successful.
At the end of the day the question seems to be whether or not it is anti-competitve that Google forces the rest of their apps on the manufacturer when they want to provide the Google Play Store on their phones. Trying to sell a smartphone without access to some kind of giant app catalog isn’t going to be successful anymore, which is one of the big reasons that Windows Phone has been so slow to reclaim marketshare and Samsung’s Tizen has been laughed out of several carriers around the world before even being launched.
An Android phone without the Google Play Store is viewed by many as barely worth even looking at, which is the basis for this lawsuit in the first place. It’s not that you can’t make Android work without Google’s services, it’s that Google seems to have worked hard to make sure no one would actually want to.
The open nature of Android, and more specifically Google, is going to be called into question in a court of law soon. We know that Google asks a great deal of manufacturers if they want access to Google Apps and Google Play Services, including specific placement of Google products on the homescreen and recently even a “powered by Android” logo in the boot screen. The lawsuit being brought against Google accuses the company of wielding these agreements to be anti-competitive, and is seeking an injunction against the company to stop this from happening.
It has been said time and time again that if you want to use Google’s apps on your version of Android, you need to follow Google’s rules. The Google Mobile Services agreement is largely a secret between Android OEMs and Google, but over the last year several details surrounding the agreement have leaked out and caused an increasing amount of commotion surrounding just how “open” Android really is.
While there are no smartphones running Android that are both free of Google Mobile Services and actually selling in any significant volume, the same can not be said for tablets. Amazon in particular has carved a niche out for themselves with the Kindle Fire and Fire TV devices, both of which run Android and are completely free of Google apps and services. If the rumors of an Amazon smartphone are true, the company will have Google free versions of Android in three key markets, serving as a prime example that you can have Android without Google and be successful.
At the end of the day the question seems to be whether or not it is anti-competitve that Google forces the rest of their apps on the manufacturer when they want to provide the Google Play Store on their phones. Trying to sell a smartphone without access to some kind of giant app catalog isn’t going to be successful anymore, which is one of the big reasons that Windows Phone has been so slow to reclaim marketshare and Samsung’s Tizen has been laughed out of several carriers around the world before even being launched.
An Android phone without the Google Play Store is viewed by many as barely worth even looking at, which is the basis for this lawsuit in the first place. It’s not that you can’t make Android work without Google’s services, it’s that Google seems to have worked hard to make sure no one would actually want to.
Tech companies that make connected devices like FitBits and Nest thermostats
are in an plum position. They rake in revenue every time someone buys
their product, leaving the freeloaders to Facebook and Twitter. But the
real prize isn't the cost of the device, it's your personal data.
What's more, taxpayers are indirectly footing the bill
because government agencies are investing millions in using that data
to (1) help utility companies manage the demand for energy and (2) help
employers promote wellness through their healthcare plans.
Forbes reports that both FitBit and Nest Labs are both taking advantage of that side hustle:
Smart-thermostat maker Nest Labs (which is being acquired by Google for $3.2 billion) has quietly built a side business managing the energy consumption of a slice of its customers on behalf of electric companies. In wearables, health tracker Fitbit is selling companies the tracking bracelets and analytics services to better manage their health care budgets, and its rival Jawbone may be preparing to do the same.
Nest Labs founder Tony Fadell told Forbes
that income from the terabytes of data being sent from your living room
will eventually outpace the money Nest makes from selling devices:
"We'll get more and more services revenue because the hardware sits on the wall for a decade," he said during an interview in December in Nest's Palo Alto office.
Nest
already has relationships with about a dozen utility companies.
Activity trackers like Fitbit aren't as far along selling data, but
insurers are already thinking about how that information might help them
adjust prices:
For privacy reasons both self-insured employers and those with group insurance have to bring on a population-management firm such as StayWell or Welltok to manage the data as a neutral third party. Amy McDonough, who oversees Fitbit's employer program, wouldn't comment on how Fitbit data would affect pricing negotiations between employers and health care providers, though health insurer Cigna said fitness trackers "may" have an impact on future group insurance pricing . The data are still being tested.
Nest's
thermostat uses multiple sensors to detect temperature and movement to
learn a household's activity. Cofounder Matt Rogers told Forbes
that Nest automatically adjusts the temperature, studying the data
itself rather than selling it directly to utilities. But it's still a
lucrative arrangement:
Nest's deals with utilities also vary. In some cases the utility reimburses customers $30-to-$50 a year per thermostat for the right to turn the air conditioner down on hot days to ease the load on the grid. In other deals Nest splits cost savings with the utility. Demand response programs are worth an estimated $80 per thermostat, so 1% of U.S. households potentially spells a $100 million pie that Nest, utilities and customers can split each year.
