
John Gruber's Post-I/O Thoughts - barredo
http://daringfireball.net/2010/05/post_io_thoughts
======
ssp
Ballmer was not wrong about the iPhone. He said they would get 2-3% of the
_total phone market_ , not the smartphone market. He even makes that clear in
the part that Gruber quoted: "... 1.3 billion phones ...". That's phones, not
smartphones.

According to [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apple-iphone-smartphone-
market...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apple-iphone-smartphone-market-share-
surges-rim-slips/34181) in the first quarter of 2010 Apple had 16.1% of
smartphones and smartphones were 18.8% of mobile phones. That comes out to
almost exactly 3%.

Ballmer also wasn't wrong about Windows Mobile. The "60 percent or 70 percent
or 80 percent" was not a prediction, it was just what he would prefer.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Perhaps Ballmer did get the right answer, after all. But was he asking the
right question?

~~~
ssp
Gruber is right about Microsoft failing at phones and that there is not much
they can do about it. However, I don't think Ballmer is in denial about that.

It was and is obvious that at some point all phones will be what we call
smartphones now. I think Ballmer's point is that even when that happens, the
iPhone will not be able to sustain its 16%. It will _still_ have insignificant
market share.

Android will not, though. It might get "60 percent or 70 percent or 80
percent", and _that's_ the share that Ballmer would have preferred run
Windows.

So yes, I think Ballmer asked the right question and got the right answer. He
just doesn't have any way to respond to Android.

~~~
timr
_"I think Ballmer asked the right question and got the right answer. He just
doesn't have any way to respond to Android."_

Of course he does: he can give away the new smartphone OS. It's not as if
Microsoft has never given away software to win market share.

~~~
clark-kent
He would also have to make it open source with no strings attached then pray
the community will adopt it.

~~~
DrSprout
He would also have to include a Webkit browser by default.

------
TomOfTTB
His points on Microsoft are well made. Given the strategic importance of this
market it amazes me how badly they've done. Realize they beat Apple to market
by around 4 years (depending on how you count the PocketPC/Phone hybrids) and
Google by almost 5 .

Now they've tossed the whole thing out and started over with a product that
won't be out for another 6 months and in terms of features seems to be
equivalent to a first generation iPhone (which is relevant because I really
don't think Microsoft is going to create a better user experience so they'd
have to compete on features)

It's really kind of sad.

~~~
frederickcook
In the PC market, Apple competes on quality, Microsoft (with hardware
manufacturers) competes on price. This is the world Ballmer imagined for the
smartphone market, but when Google knocked the floor out by giving away the OS
(or even paying the carrier a cut of the search revenue), there is no place
left for Microsoft to position itself.

Unless Windows Mobile is a vastly superior product to Android (and how likely
is that?), it'll be left out of the smartphone market unless they can give it
away and try to make it up in Bing search revenue.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
They could just lose money, up to tens of billions, for a decade while working
their way up to a solid 3rd place position.

Worked for Xbox.

~~~
nickelplate
I think it is still too early to say that. Microsoft has yet to recoup the
money they invested in the Xbox, and they probably won't anytime soon. And
while they are still ahead of Sony in the console race, the PS3 has picked up
quite a bit lately. Microsoft could very well finish the race dead last at the
end of the current generation, with Sony at the top spot and Nintendo a close
second.

------
raptrex
Although syncing with a computer may feel retrograde, I'm sure theres a lot of
people, including myself, that would rather keep their data due to privacy
issues instead of relying on Google or Apple to store it. However, I think
most people would prefer cloud syncing since it is so easy for the user.

~~~
mootymoots
Any type of wireless syncing is good for me, whether that's with the cloud, or
with a Mac/PC on my wireless network.

USB syncing is sooo 20th Century

~~~
m_eiman
It'd better be an N Wifi if I'm going to sync 16GB of music to a new device,
and even that's going to take quite a while. Of course, USB 2.0 isn't really
up to the task either - but at least it's faster by a significant factor.

~~~
mootymoots
sure, the initial sync, like an initial time machine backup, would take an age
to sync wirelessly...

I'm thinking post that though, walking into my network and syncing latest
updates, even without my prompting

~~~
m_eiman
Agreed, I can't think of any good reason not to allow sync over wifi (or over
3g for that matter, if I'm on a flatrate plan).

~~~
ericd
Because the 3G infrastructure is overloaded as it is without multi-gig
downloads?

~~~
m_eiman
Downloading the initial sync over 3g isn't something I'd do if I could avoid
it, but incremental syncs would be just fine. Even adding an album or two
wouldn't take -that- long, and if the network can't handle a few downloads now
and then it's just plain broken. Besides, everyone over here in Sweden is
selling mobile broadband like there's no tomorrow, so their networks should be
up to it.

~~~
ericd
Ah how I wish the US had Sweden's net/mobile infrastructure.

Carriers here like to complain that people are downloading too much rather
than just upgrading the infrastructure to deal with it. I shudder to think
what would happen if people started downloading over the air on a serious
scale, it's already pretty bad with normal web surfing.

------
symesc
His footnote is interesting: "Although there’s still no decent Android-based
equivalent to the iPod Touch."

He's right. Based on price, there is no equivalent.

On features, the equivalent is a Google Nexus One without a SIM card.

Trouble is, that's about to not be available from Google directly. I'm
wondering whether we'll be able to buy an N1 without a contract ever again.

Disclosure: I bought an N1 directly from Google and loved the experience of
not having to talk to a carrier or any staff member at a generic retail
outlet.

~~~
jackowayed
But the N1 isn't even a very good substitute.

Although people who buy iTouches love all the apps and the ability to browse
the web whenever they have WiFi, in the end, they're buying an mp3 player.
They're buying it so that they can listen to music.

Not only is the N1 much more expensive, but it also has a much worse music-
playing interface. Until someone fixes the Android music player or writes
their own (luckily, an app can have all the privileges that the core apps
have, so anyone could just write the Awesome Music Player app and put it in
the market), the demand for a good Android iTouch competitor won't be there.

But I do think that getting an iTouch-like Android device out there is
important. There are only so many people who are willing to pay $30/month for
Internet on their phone, but pretty much everyone is willing to pay $200-$300
for a nice mp3 player with no recurring cost. And it's important to get as
many Android devices out there as possible so that consumers believe that it's
a good option (in many people's minds, popular == good) and app developers see
more incentive to write good apps.

~~~
armandososa

        Although people who buy iTouches love all the apps and the ability to browse the web whenever they have WiFi, in the end, they're buying an mp3 player. They're buying it so that they can listen to music.
    

I don't think you are right.

The touch music player interface is good, but not as good as my old 40GB iPod
Video. Man, it has been almost two years now and I still miss the clickwheel.

I got my iPod touch because of the large screen, the wi-fi and the apps. I
don't even hear as much music as I've used to because I _really_ hate
unblocking the screen to skip songs and change volume.

Clickwheel, I miss you.

~~~
ZitchDog
The headphones on my iPod touch give me the ability to skip forward/backward
and change volume.

------
kenshi
It's not just Microsoft who seem to be out of the game so to speak. What's
going on with Nokia? It's taking them forever to come up with a device and/or
platform that seems like a credible competitor to Android and iPhone OS.

~~~
armandososa
And that makes me somewhat sad. I've been a user of Nokia for 10 years and I
allways loved those devices. When I purchased my last phone, 1.5 years ago, I
gave them a vote of confidence and got an E71 instead of an iPhone.

I regret it every day. Stupid E71.

~~~
fierarul
Yeah, I've also got an E71 instead and don't like it.

I also dislike how Nokia basically left the phone (or the OS) unsupported and
they are now targeting the big-screen iPhone-clones. Nice move there.

I suppose it's no need to tell you how broken their Ovi "market" app is...

------
barredo
It's funny because John starts with "Google is doing this fine" and "Apple is
doing that fine", and "we are all gonna get better smartphones with this kind
of rilvalry" and then when you think he is goint to add Microsoft into the
rivalry: "Oh, yeah, remember Microsoft? it seems like they don't remember the
smartphone market"

------
jsz0
_Google is upping the ante on the iPhone here, though, by adding cloud-based
data backup for Android applications_

How many apps will actually support this feature? It doesn't sound like it's
an OS level feature transparent to third party apps. Am I going to have to
keep track of which apps support it and which don't?

------
nailer
> One area where the iPhone has been far ahead of Android is in terms of
> backing up and restoring data. Buy a new iPhone, or install a major OS
> update, and when you re-sync with iTunes on your desktop, all your apps and
> data are re-installed.

Gruber doesn't seem to get that Android is cloud based: buy a new Android
phone, sign in, and your contacts, apps and bookmarks are available
immediately, no finding a PC to tether to.

Music and (for some odd reason) text messages are currently excluded though.

~~~
buro9
I think he does, but he acknowledges that _data_ isn't included in the
previous cloud based offering.

I was blown away when I first got an N1 (my first android) and signed in on
startup and immediately had my contacts, email, calendar, etc wired up.

No computer required. No special software required. It just works.

What Google are doing now is taking that further and making that include data
like music, pictures, TXT messages, etc. So now when you replace your android
that stuff automatically comes across.

What would be lovely is that instead of just sync, whether we could manage the
older devices. i.e: Get a new mobile, sync it, declare the old mobile to be
wiped and have the old mobile hear that and purge itself.

This helps on the security side, as you could remotely wipe a stolen device.
But it also helps with re-selling used phones safe in the knowledge that your
data is intact and you're not leaving any on the device.

I think it's the next obvious gap filler in the cloud-owning-the-data space.
We can move and sync, now clean up behind us.

Well, that and the fact that if data is persisted across all devices that you
eventually will exceed the storage capacity of the device itself. But I'm
guessing that network speed will keep pace with this and by the time we're at
that crunch point Google will be able to serve that stuff on-demand and just
use the phone as a local cache rather than as the persistent storage itself.

------
adbge
Gruber's thoughts can be summed up as: Google vs Apple, bring it on, but
where's Microsoft? While he isn't wrong, it's not exactly much more than some
common sense.

I also think he _seriously_ underestimates Microsoft.

~~~
sasidharm
Microsoft will be 3.5 years late to the _smartphone_ party when windows phone
7 series will eventually be released. People would have already made their
choice between iPhone and Android.

~~~
ekiru
Apple will be 5 years late to the _smartphone_ party when the iPhone will
eventually be released. People would have already made their choice between
Blackberry and Nokia.

------
mootymoots
Gruber's comments on Microsoft are so dead on...

~~~
glhaynes
It's shocking how irrelevant they are in most of the things that are getting a
lot of press these days. It's hard for me to imagine the scenario where
Windows ever becomes a big player on mobile.

I wonder where they'd be if they'd have been broken up by the US government a
decade ago.

~~~
sketerpot
I remember the early 2000s. I devoutly _hoped_ that Linux would get widely
used in some way, even if it never really took off on the desktop. I wanted
open source to be fairly common and well-accepted, and not just something that
weird people wrote and talked about on Slashdot. And hacker-friendly open-
source Linux-based smartphones would be great, but that was just too
implausibly awesome to even hope for. I wanted pleasant languages like Python
to get serious commercial use.

Now, all those things have happened or are happening. Want to get on board
with cloud hosting in any way? The standard options involve Linux VM images.
Languages like Ruby and Python are mainstream and well-supported. Android is
disrupting the smartphone market, and has the kind of widespread commercial
backing I never would have thought possible for an open, Linux-based thing.
Microsoft is no longer an unstoppable leviathan; they've stopped being scary.

Occasionally I'll reflect on all this and chortle happily. I wasn't optimistic
enough back in the early 2000s, and that's surprising.

~~~
mbreese
What is really funny is that we never really hit the year of Linux on the
desktop. I mean, this has been speculation for years... Will this be the year
that Linux really starts to make in roads in the Desktop market? For the most
part, the answer has always been no. Redhat and Novell/Suse have all but left
the desktop (commercially, not counting Fedora). Ubuntu has all but taken over
the desktop Linux market. Overall, Linux Desktop experience has increased
substantially since 2000, but it has never really caught up with Windows (now
7) and the Mac. (I actually think that the Mac has hurt Linux adoption on the
Desktop more than Windows.

So, I too find it quite humorous that Linux is poised to be a, if not _the_
major player in the next generation of computing - the portable/dedicated
devices. But what I find more amusing is that it hasn't been the success of
Linux on the desktop that has made this possible, it has been the decline in
the importance of the desktop.

So, 2010 may finally be the year of Linux, but it still won't be the year of
Linux on the desktop. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

~~~
chipsy
It's amusing, but not a very surprising outlook for the tech industry;
platform shifts are opportunities for competitors to break in.

Linux came a little bit too late to make inroads on the desktop vs. the
incumbent DOS/Windows platform of the early 90's - if it, and the GNU tools,
had reached the 1991 level of development in the mid-80s when the PC clones
first took hold, that story might have been a different one - but in the real
world, it still devastated the competition on servers when the Web started its
massive post-1994 growth.

Now we're hitting the juncture where, again, a new platform category is poised
for growth; recall how netbooks started as Linux boxes, and only ended up
running Windows after a combination of effort(Win7), strongarming(subsidies
and licensing agreements), and initial advantages(the desktop ecosystem, which
is largely netbook-compatible) from Microsoft. This time around, those tactics
can't work.

It might actually work out that the desktop still shifts towards Linux in the
end; the "bottom-up" nature of progress in tech means that people are going to
want a desktop that does everything their mobile environment does (plus
desktop things). Hence, desktops will start running Android or a compatible
variant...which would naturally work out to mean you'd be running Linux, even
if it isn't today's Linux environments.

------
jacquesm
The interesting things here are (1) that microsoft isn't even mentioned as one
of the protagonists in the main battle (that's clearly apple vs google, (2)
that google has done to microsoft what microsoft did to netscape, give away
the product the other party hopes to sell.

------
writetoalok
In other news, Microsoft sues software as a service company Salesforce.

[http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/microsoft-sues-
salesforce-c...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/microsoft-sues-salesforce-
claims-infringement-on-nine-patents/)

------
dave1619
It appears to me the biggest news from google I/O was the release of flash on
android, just a couple weeks after Steve Jobs says it wasn't practical. Google
just didn't demo it and give a release date several months away, but they
delivered it (with reports of folks getting 2.2 pushed already). Seems like
Apple needs to reconsider their position on Flash... already.

~~~
czhiddy
Flash could run at 100% native app speeds with no battery hit and Apple still
wouldn't support it. Why? It's not part of their overall plan to give Adobe
power over the platform.

So no, Apple doesn't need to (and won't) reconsider their position on Flash.

~~~
dave1619
Why couldn't Apple let flash play in the browser but just not allow flash apps
into the Appstore? I think users wouldn't mind that.

~~~
riobard
Then people would build Flash apps and just run it in browser and bypass App
Store all together. If that happens, not only does Apple give the control to
Adobe (and have to rely on Adobe to support iPhone Flash plugin, which is
absolutely not what Apple wants), it also loses the benefits of charging 30%
of the revenue if the apps would have been sold in App Store.

It's worst situation for Apple.

~~~
dave1619
I know Apple doesn't want to support a flash plugin and was burned by Adobe in
the past, but with Android supporting flash now Steve Jobs has less excuses to
tell users why they can't view flash on websites. Most users won't understand
why they're Android friends can access flash sites, but they can't. Apple
could work with Adobe to get a flash plugin on the iPhone, they just don't
want to.

Also, people can make flash apps in the browser and that's fine. It wouldn't
hurt AppStore sales, cause native apps would be better.

~~~
watty
Apple will create more excuses... I'm thinking security issues will be the
next focus.

Flash could (and probably would) hurt AppStore sales. It probably wouldn't be
significant but some developers would choose to use or keep using Flash rather
than creating a native App.

------
andreyf
_Take the current URL from your PC web browser and push it to your device,
over the air. If it’s a web page, it’ll open in the Android web browser; if
it’s a Google Maps URL, it’ll open in the Android Maps app._

Meaning that now, not only can spyware pop up porn on my parents' home
computer, it can also push porn to my kid sister's cell phone? Ditto for
apps... I imagine spyware is a thing of the past for most Googlers, but it
certainly isn't for the majority of users.

~~~
watty
Isn't there going to be security with this feature? I don't think any
app/website can send remote commands without having your credentials. If
spyware has your kid sister's Google credentials, pop-ups are the last of her
worries.

~~~
andreyf
Do you seriously think most GMail accounts are never used on a computer which
has spyware installed? You must be joking...

~~~
watty
A program that keylogs your machine and grabs your passwords is a virus.
You're right they are fairly common but once again a "popup" on your phone
from a virus is the least of your worries.

------
anr
I'm not sure Apple is ahead on backup & restore with the iPhone / iPad.

You shouldn't need a desktop (with an OS that runs iTunes) in the first place.
I read that the first thing you need to do with iPad is to connect it to
iTunes.

~~~
holman
What Gruber was getting at is that Apple has a far better syncing strategy
since Android wipes everything between updates and Apple neatly brings all
your data with you.

That said, the cloud-based syncing that Android will eventually ship looks
like the "right" solution. I doubt anyone at Apple considers USB syncing to be
the end game, though; I'd be shocked if they didn't have some sort of over-
the-air syncing in the pipeline. The question in my mind is will they fix this
in 2010 or will they fix this a few years from now. People won't want to stay
tethered that much longer.

As a sidenote- syncing over USB makes sense for the iPhone, in some respects,
but the iPad lends itself to be a standalone computer. Tying that to another
centralized hub is a hassle, and that's where an Android-esque cloud sync
would be great.

~~~
portman
_> >since Android wipes everything between updates_

My G1 upgraded from 1.0 > 1.1 > 1.5 > 1.6 without wiping.

My Droid upgraded from 2.0 > 2.1 (and will > 2.2 soon) without wiping.

~~~
holman
Ah; I stand corrected... I misread what Gruber wrote. Looks like Android
handles updates fine, but there's no way to cross-load data between _devices_.
So buying the latest and greatest hardware leaves you in the cold, at least
until Froyo.

