- Apr 9, 2013
- 201
- 0
- 0
With the exception of the first OS and Froyo, Google's iterations of the OS have been named after the generic name of (often junk) foods. Now they've taken on the name of an actual, copyright-protected foodstuff for the next OS? Cross-advertising aside, I can't see either Google or Nestle is pressured for the cash that such a deal would demand, so to who's benefit is this? It goes without saying, it won't be the consumer - and while I hope I won't find embedded ads every time I boot up my device or popping up randomly as I use Google apps, a sudden rush of Nestle product-inspired icons or find that my online browser use is being sent to Nestle for interpretation, I also wouldn't put it past Google.
Do they expect that simply having KitKat as part of the Android experience mean that users will be more inclined to have an irrational need for the real thing? Is there proof there was a sudden uptick in jellybean sales when the current OS came out? Or are we simply finding this is a start to 3rd Party products sponsoring our use of unrelated products? What's next? The Jim Bean Chromecast? Or is it simply that Google is further drifting away from its mantra?
Stop trying to be cute (or worse, monetize users who have already done you the favour of buying into your products), Google.
Do they expect that simply having KitKat as part of the Android experience mean that users will be more inclined to have an irrational need for the real thing? Is there proof there was a sudden uptick in jellybean sales when the current OS came out? Or are we simply finding this is a start to 3rd Party products sponsoring our use of unrelated products? What's next? The Jim Bean Chromecast? Or is it simply that Google is further drifting away from its mantra?
Stop trying to be cute (or worse, monetize users who have already done you the favour of buying into your products), Google.

