I wonder if Nikon truly realizes some of the implications of what they've done by creating the Android-based Coolpix S800C.
One of the things I've been trying to figure out is why they're using version 2.3.3 of Android. As it turns out, the current 4.x versions require OpenGL and a GPU. I suspect there isn't a GPU in the S800C (that'll be one of the questions I'll be asking Nikon at Photokina). If so, that would mean version 2.3.3 is it.
That's not bad in and of itself, as 2.3.3 is stable and has a great deal of capability. The problem is this: the hardware is now disposable. Maybe that's what Nikon wants (that would after all, allow them to continue to sell tens of millions of Coolpix at low margins each year if everyone is constantly disposing of them to upgrade). But it signals that they just lost control of their ecosystem, too. When you think about it, in this context, to the customer the apps they buy (software) become more valuable than the device (hardware). That's because the apps carry over to new devices (especially if we're talking about buying once and running on phone, tablet, and camera).
This is a little like developing a DSLR but ceding the lens development to another company, and a company that licenses those lenses to any and all of your competitors at that.
Tech companies that thrive and survive control their own products and pricing. Companies that license commonly available IP to create products get marginalized into low margins for commodity products, and they end up with plenty of me-too competitors trying to do the same thing. As far back as 1976 I realized that the high tech business was really a software business. While you could make hardware companies, ultimately you needed to either have your own IP that kept your products unique or you would fight the long march towards commodity and low margins. When I helped create the QuickCam, it wasn't to sell cameras, it was to jumpstart a market for software that required cameras (videoconferencing, for example).
Ask yourself this: of all the personal computer companies that started in the first decade (1976-1986), how many and which ones are still in business? Apple (owns their own IP). The rest nova-ed out (including one I helped run), got sold (IBM to Lenevo, Compaq to HP, etc.), or just have never managed to get into the mainstream (Sony, still trying with the Vaio, but now facing their software provider entering the hardware business ;~). All the action moved to China/Taiwan for one simple reason: cutting costs.
Thus, Nikon seems to be saying with their massive push in Coolpix (28 currently sold models estimating that they'll take more market share from competitors) that they are going to be the lowest priced provider. In other words, commodity at high volume and low margin. Let Google steer them where Google wants them, there are pennies to be made! And made again soon when the customer needs a newer version.