5 ms·
You arrived at this conclusion as a result of Android's naming convention which uses food names instead of version numbers?
by sharan 13y ago
You arrived at this conclusion as a result of Android's naming convention which uses food names instead of version numbers?
- willvarfar 13y agoJelly Bean was sponsored? Calling the version "KitKat" was basically product-placement.
- ape4 13y agoWho is sponsoring who?
- willvarfar 13y agoNestle paid for product placement of 'kitkat'. Nestle have given press releases describing their 'collaboration', and even set up this website. Its inconceivable that Google did not demand payment; Google could have called it something generic like all their previous versions. Google of course probably approached Nestle. They created a new revenue generating angle on creating an OS. Debian ought to go get money from other brands through similar version naming. Seriously, why isn't the next Ubuntu called "Head&Shoulders"?
- kevincennis 13y agoThere was an article on The Verge yesterday about the Google/Nestlé thing. They said no money changed hands.
- gdilla 13y agoRight. Why does Google need to paid for this? Any dollar figure would be insignificant, not scaleable and not part of their core business. Selling naming rights to their SDKs?! Are these baseball stadiums?
- deelowe 13y ago> Nestle paid for product placement of 'kitkat'. I haven't seen that anywhere. All reports thus far have said that neither side is paying for this.
- ape4 13y agoMight become a thing. Of course, Android is more famous than Ubuntu (to the masses)
- epo 13y agoGoogle could not have adopted marketing like this without Nestlé's approval. Nestlé are truly vile and "do no evil™" are in some form of partnership with them, at the very least it is cross-promotion.
- RobAley 13y agoNo, I arrived at that conclusion because KitKat and Google have both publicly announced the tie-up, and Google doesn't seem to understand, or more likely doesn't care, what it means to actively promote a company like Nestle. There are plently of other "K" foods they could choose if they wanted to. To be fair, it's not just this incident that helped me reach the conclusion, its been festering at the back of my mind for a while.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- strickjb9 13y agoI'm not sure I see this as anything more as a co-branding strategy.
- DanBC 13y agoBut it's a co-branding strategy with a company that is widely condemned as having some horrible (and illegal) practices. It's trivially easy to find these. I cannot believe that anyone at the largest search engine company in history failed to find or read criticism of Nestle before announcing the co branding. The only conclusion to draw is that Google knew about, and did not care about, the criticism of Nestle. Why not go the easy route and find a less obviously evil company?
- gbog 13y agoAnother possible conclusion is that they selected a few possibilities, including other K-desserts (Kakao? no, too Cocoa; Kremlin Cake? too sovietic; Kaki jam? Weird, too Chinese; etc) and decided the less bad one was Kitkat. I'd say the problem is to be too systematic. Same with Ubuntu Zoomy Zoo and Apple iSeries. Would a writer submit himself to such a gimmick for his book's names? However, my main grip again Kitkat would be that it is the same as all other "chocolate" bar: it is industrial junk-food, making us all obese, and it do not contain chocolate.
- 13y ago
- gdilla 13y agoThey never used branded or trademarked food names. It's cute and attention getting though.