via 50 Androids march to school for training day.

via The Varieties of Android Experience.

Friday afternoon photo showing some of the test devices used by Animoca QA.

via All the Myriad Androids.

They say Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I suppose it says something about your presumed success that ones Apps are being cloned and we’ve had our own case of apps being copied identical to our design and mechanic, but the below really takes the cake!

I’ve never heard of this company (Grass Roots Apps) before but they didn’t even bother changing the icon and are still calling it a Pet Salon of sorts. Even in the world of fast cloning and the business realities surrounding it, this is a bit too much. Luckily we own the trademark on our designs and will likely take action but what does this mean for many other app makers that don’t have such legal support?

I suppose we should be flattered for having been so audaciously cloned

For an afternoon of  light fun and popcorn with everyone at Outblaze.

The summary of the suggestion is: don’t show apps that have already been installed on your device when you are browsing the top rankings. If you are a moderately active user, chances are you already have a fair number of the Top 25 apps installed, so you are already engaged with those products and don’t need to see them again when you browse top lists. This simple tweak would benefit app developers, consumers and the platform. For more on this click here.

The feeling appears to be mutual.

None of the large social gaming companies were present, most notably Zynga (which recently inked a sizeable multimillion dollar investment with Softbank) didn’t even have a presence, as if they didn’t care (and perhaps they don’t!). The President of ESA, organizers of E3, in an interview titled  Why isn’t Zynga at E3? explained their absence as “it was probably a little too early”. So what he’s suggesting is that Zynga wasn’t ready for E3? It’s rather well known that Zynga has not been very popular amongst many in the game industry.

Even EA’s Playfish (which has a relevant FIFA and social gaming lineup) was completely MIA, which suggests that EA themselves may consider EA Playfish as an indistinguishable “category” of its own.

If the Gaming Industry wants to beat or adapt to this new wave they will need to do a lot better than to ignore them. Jesse Shell’s earlier presentation at DICE 2010 many months ago made a strong case about how the industry simply cannot ignore these new trends but I guess that message has yet to properly sink in.

As Rob Enderle’s described it “the gaming industry has been anemic”, while he said that specifically about Apple’s entry into the sector I get the same feeling about Social Gaming.

Let us hypothesize for a moment: Google’s exit is not necessarily a face saving move or  a public stab at Baidu, but a tactic calculated to gain market share in more lucrative western markets, which represent the vast majority of Google’s currently reported financials (Q1-3 USD 16.974 billion with Q4 results also expected to be strong). Google is getting excellent publicity globally about this issue  (outside of China, that is). Even more interestingly, Google has recently become proactive on similar sensitive topics and I would not be surprised if this situation ends up creating a significant rise in activity and demand for Google products and services.

Imagine for a moment that Google does not care much about China as a domestic market at present. Sound foolish? Not if you have tried to do business in China as a foreign company, which is famously difficult and frustrating. It is almost a taboo to talk about China as a market to ignore, but just because Google might not be planning to focus on the domestic market that doesn’t mean there isn’t a Chinese market to address.

Google won’t exit China completely. Even if Google is forced to shut down all operations (which I think is unlikely), it will continue to have a growing and lucrative base of Chinese companies advertising outside of China for as long as China will continue to globalize and export to the world. This is something that Baidu is absolutely not in a position to do today or in the near to medium term.

As  Rebecca MacKinnon points out on her blog, Google’s actions – like the actions of any other company – are automatically motivated by self-interest. There can be no exception to this rule in the world of business.

The search market in China is still emerging. Baidu, the clear market leader, generated USD 466 million in the first three quarters of 2009, which is roughly 3% of Google’s overall revenue for the same period. It is very likely that Google’s domestic China revenue is much smaller than Baidu’s. Even the projected USD 310 million of Google China revenues that some analysts were predicting for 2010 would be tiny in comparison to what Google could earn if it increased market share in the US and Europe by just a few percentage points.

I think a legitimate question that few (if any) seem to have asked so far is whether Google’s exit from China may not actually lift its short or mid-term business prospects.

Will Google increase their search market share because they have earned higher public trust? After all, trust and safety are key issues in the battle for the cloud. Google has a lot of new enemies today across a dizzying range of sectors, and may feel it is more relevant to address them than to struggle in China. Also noteworthy,  Google has advertised its China stance, making it clear to the public that Google’s exit is motivated by a mixture of idealism and security. The battle in core western markets is heating up as never before, and Google knows that few if any US technology or media companies owe their success to China markets.

It doesn’t sound particularly plausible that a concentrated hacker attack and espionage concerns could trigger a company to exit a whole market. If the hackers were interested in dissidents’ Gmail accounts there is nothing that prevents them from more hacking after Google exits China (cyber-attacks are not geographically restricted). And if Google was  concerned about espionage then why would it want to maintain a significant development presence inside China?

As a business person, I can see the business and financial logic of retreating from China: Google will regroup and live to fight another day in a market that is not only extremely difficult to penetrate but that also has a hideously complex and fluid regulatory framework that all foreign companies must adhere to. Google is no exception, having struggled for domestic market share in China just like other foreign media and technology companies.

Anyone who has attempted to do serious business in China will tell you that it is very difficult and challenging. For one thing, the playing field is not level by any definition or stretch of the imagination, as recently illustrated by China moving to ban foreign investment into the lucrative domestic online gaming market (in China, revenues in the online gaming market are substantially higher than online advertising and search).

We know Google’s imperative is to do no evil, but as an individual I don’t think Google’s departure is good for China or the Chinese or Internet freedom, and on that basis I think the exit is a bad idea. I certainly agree that China and the Chinese are better off with Google than not, but I have no doubt that Google’s motives are also informed by very pragmatic business reasoning.

There is, of course, no question that China offers significant opportunities and (as I  noted earlier) China is not necessarily closed to Google. This is a country still squirming its way through Internet adolescence and Google will no doubt find the right moment to re-enter that market, probably as a more serious and better prepared player.  I don’t believe the present spat between Google and China should be interpreted as a long term Google exit from China. Let’s not forget this is Google, one of the world’s mightiest and savviest corporations, with more than enough resources and talent to re-enter China when they think the time is right. After all, they can start the process of re-entry simply by  making an acquisition or two.