

Android Again - brett
http://mattmaroon.com/?p=476

======
wired247
The reason that Microsoft/Windows has such a dominant market share has nothing
to do with how 'open' the PC market is—it is due to the historical
predominance of Microsoft DOS which is related to the fact that IBM was the
first company that sold 'Personal' Computers into businesses. In the 1970's
virtually no individuals had computers of their own, and the vast majority of
people who had used a computer were exposed to it at work.

As businesses purchased IBM PCs instead of terminals for large IBM mainframes
or minis, more and more people were exposed to computers. Apple was selling
computers into a very different market—they were serving computer
'enthusiasts', in the 1970's that was a very limited group akin to those
people who build thier own sailboats or airplanes. IBM was exposing a much
larger and more homogenous group of people to computers—people with jobs ;-)

As computers became more mainstream over the years there were just more people
who had used and were familiar with 'PCs' running MS-DOS, which eventually
transitioned into Windows. The Microsoft piece of the personal-computer market
has ALWAYS been bigger in the modern era, because it was the easy
choice—people used it at work, bought it for home, and were comfortable
recommending the same approach for their friends and co-workers.

Mobile devices such as smartphones are VERY 'personal'. With the possible
exception of the BlackBerry, which will have been imposed on a lot of people
through their jobs (as the PC/MS combo was in the 70's and 80's) people are
free to choose whatever they want for their device. The majority of the market
will not choose a smartphone based on whether or not the OS is 'open' or
'closed'—they will very likely not understand the distinction.

Apple understands that users will not be interested in apportioning blame
between the hardware manufacturer, the OS provider and the applications
developers. AT&T probably understands this too, and so will other carriers.
If/when Android develops any of the little _issues_ that are very common with
applications written for other 'open' platforms, those issues will reflect
poorly on all parties involved.

The public at large will not understand and accept the compromises in
applications that those of us in the "blogosphere" take for granted They will
not keep coming back to try an application through 25 "point" releases until
it is finally/potentially better and more robust than any 'closed-OS'
alternative - they will give up on it.

Customers will choose smartphones based on how USABLE they are, how many
useful and easy-to-use features they have, how reliable they are, and how
'cool' they are. Unfortunately, Android and any other completely 'open' OS is
likely to have more buggy applications and security issues than a semi-
monitored 'closed' system like the iPhone OS. I do not think Android will ever
be a major player in the smartphone space unless/until they modify their
definition of 'open' to allow some method for 'vetting' of applications.

~~~
mattmaroon
All they need for that is a solid ratings system in the store. Or possibly
some independent third party certification system. Both are easily possible.

------
axod
The iPhone has the best browser available for a smartphone... and if you have
a browser you can do pretty much anything.

What is the lure going to be for people to stop moving to webapps, and
suddenly embrace an open platform and installable apps?

The web, through a browser, is the best open platform IMHO

~~~
ashu
_What is the lure going to be for people to stop moving to webapps, and
suddenly embrace an open platform and installable apps?_

The fact that internet connectivity on a desktop vs. on your mobile device is
different by an order of magnitude. When you get ubiquitous and fast internet
on the mobile device (not some bizarre spotty coverage), then things will
change. Maybe Europe is ahead in regards to that, but in the US, I don't see
that happening very soon.

Edit: oh, and also the processor speeds. So, basically I will bet on webapps
for mobile after 3-4 years. Until then, at least, installable apps will work
better.

Another Edit: perhaps, when something like Google Gears is everywhere, it
might change. But offline support - both for code and data - is kind of
essential.

~~~
paulgb
"Another Edit: perhaps, when something like Google Gears is everywhere, it
might change. But offline support - both for code and data - is kind of
essential."

HTML 5 includes a storage API, including a SQL database. Apparently the iPhone
already has it, and any browser based on WebKit (Nokia, Android?) will likely
have it in the not too distant future.

------
biohacker42
I don't think you can generalize the PC's lead over Mac to say that Android
will eventually overtake.

First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market
leader in certain market segments.

Those markets have always been dominated by Mac.

The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you
say the same about cellphones?

It seems to me that cellphones are much more narrowly defined and used. Some
are fashion accessories, some like the Blackberry are like a communication
utility.

But none are a generic computing device, and I don't think they'll ever be. So
it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny
thingy.

You could even say that with Vista's DRM, even the PC is heading that way,
where the open platform will eventually be relegated to a niche enthusiast
market.

People like us will pay a premium to get a PC as open as one anyone can by
today.

~~~
SwellJoe
_First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market
leader in certain market segments._

If you're willing to play the "in this market segment" game, you can make
anybody a winner. OpenBSD totally has a lock on the "paranoid dudes in their
mom's basement who think Debian is too damned corporate" market segment.

 _The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can
you say the same about cellphones?_

I think you can. "A generic mobile device". There, I said it.

The PC, in hindsight, I think was obviously a case of fully proprietary
(Apple) vs. mostly open (the PC, with DOS and later Windows). One can easily
say, "It's the applications!" And you'd be right...but why were there more
apps for PC than Mac? Bigger market, sure. But, if Apple could stop people
from making applications for the Mac, and Microsoft couldn't, I know which OS
I'd be developing for. And that's the situation here. Apple are basically
being bastards to their customers and their developers, and because Apple
products are really attractive, extremely well-executed, and generally good
and useful, people haven't _immediately_ noticed what a bastard Apple is being
about the whole thing. But, I think Matt's right. People _will_ notice that
Apple is treating them like crap, with abusive contracts, abusive terms for
distribution of applications, and anti-competitive practices with regard to
who gets to make and sell apps for the iPhone. It's already happening, and
Apple will either wise up, or lose out.

 _You could even say that with Vista's DRM, even the PC is heading that way,
where the open platform will eventually be relegated to a niche enthusiast
market._

Nobody is saying that Microsoft is open, or good for consumers. At least, I
didn't take Matt's post to indicate that at all. He merely used the early PC
vs. Mac war as an interesting historical precedent for what's going to play
out in the mobile market and for the very same reasons: Cost, availability of
apps, and control (i.e. who controls your device: you, or the manufacturer?).

I think the comparisons are pretty obvious and pretty difficult to argue
against. The current behavior and direction of Microsoft (and its own
historical abusive behavior) is irrelevant. Nobody is going to argue that the
PC was a less open platform than the Mac in the 80s and 90s, and changes in
the landscape since then don't alter history.

 _So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny
thingy._

I think it'll be dominated by the cheapest thing that does what people want,
just like PCs. It is becoming a commodity...as most mass-manufactured goods
do.

~~~
ashu
It continually amazes me why people have such intense hatred of Apple. At
least, you give credit, but still: "bastards"? Abusive contracts: who knows
who forced an abusive contract for the phone? I agree with you that cheaper,
working things will beat the crap out of the iPhone, but still: "bastards"?
What did they do to you, man?

~~~
SwellJoe
_It continually amazes me why people have such intense hatred of Apple._

I have no hatred for Apple. I have very little interest in Apple, in general.
But, we're witnessing a really interesting time in computing, and I think it's
worth paying attention to how it plays out, because it will shape how we use
computers and online services for years to come. So, my feelings for Apple, in
particular, aren't strong in any particular direction...but I'm paying close
attention because my livelihood will be shaped by what plays out over the next
year or three. If the industry follows Apple+AT&Ts lead, I believe it would be
really bad for consumers.

 _Abusive contracts: who knows who forced an abusive contract for the phone?_

We can know, with confidence, that the telco _and_ Apple worked together to
come up with the abomination that is the 2nd gen iPhone contract. The mobile
industry, coming from the telco industry of old, is about as abusive as an
industry can be and still be legal (and with a wee bit of competition
allowed), and yet Apple managed to one-up every other phone contract to come
up with the crazytown that is the iPhone contract. It's the worst contract in
the industry, as far as I know, and that's saying something. Since AT&T does
offer more reasonable contracts for other devices, I'd say it's pretty clear
that Apple had a hand in devising the iPhone contract. If you'd like to
believe that Jobs is a gentle soul who only wants the best for the world, and
would give away free ponies to everyone if those evil telcos would only let
him, you're certainly free to continue to do so. I'm not of that opinion. I'm
of the opinion that Jobs is a less (monetarily) successful Bill Gates (though
far more successful on other fronts...like product development). I don't hate
Bill Gates, or Microsoft, either. I just avoid dealing with them as much as
possible.

 _What did they do to you, man?_

Nothing. They have no power over me, at all, since I've never entered into any
contract or agreement with Apple, and probably won't as long as they are as
controlling as they have historically been.

I perhaps use strong language...I figure I'm among friends here at HN, and
that you'll all understand that I'm coming from a somewhat more extreme
position than is the norm (I contribute to EFF regularly, I have been an Open
Source software developer for ten years, and I generically hate anti-
competitive practices wherever they appear). I'm not saying Apple kills
babies, just that they are on the wrong end of history if they think they can
maintain the level of control they have over the iPhone without dramatically
damaging their future market share. I'm not RMS, but I think and hope that
openness will win out over fully proprietary.

If you don't think the iPhone has an abusive contract, by all means, buy and
use an iPhone with joy. If you don't think iTunes terms of service and DRM are
bad for consumers (and that poor Steve is being strong-armed into using DRM by
those nasty record labels), then by all means buy your songs from iTunes. I'll
continue to use a mobile device other than an iPhone. I'm planning to buy the
HTC G1 when it arrives, assuming the contract is sane. And I'll continue to
get my music from other, non-DRM encumbered, sources, like emusic, Amazon
Unbox, Amie St., direct from artists, etc.

~~~
netcan
_note on the iphone contracts_

Not sure how things are (& were) in the states, but down here I think Apple
did something interesting. The iphone plans must come with 'data plans.' These
have been available but something that consumers just didn't want (to pay for)
previously. They always took the 'pay as you go' options, & just avoided using
it. So the majority of people that bought phones in the past couple of years
had internet enable devices that they never used. Apple broke that.

I think it comes back to Apple's measures of success. They don't just measure
sales, they measure _use_. Do you check mail? Do you listen to music? Do you
use the browser?

The contracts (while highly priced) are there to optimise for those latter
metrics. It's a much more forward minded strategy then most of what we've seen
up to now. Given the whole segment a kick up the arse.

------
ReverendBayes
Google could end this now with a nationwide wimax buildout. Build a skype-like
voice protocol on the android stack, open source a reference hardware design,
and let programmers planetwide innovate on the platform. Would fell the iphone
and every other carrier within a year or two.

~~~
mattmaroon
Google failed to win the broadcast spectrum to build out anything. It's not as
simple as just deciding to put up some towers.

------
kapitti
It's comments like this:

"And there’s the Shuffle, which I’m not really sure if anyone ever purchases,
but maybe it’s just for people who are too poor to buy the Nano and only own 3
CDs because most of their collection is still on 8-track."

That make me dislike Matt - there's just something about the tone of that
statement.

------
volida
i don't get it

Symbian has a 70% of the market. Why is Android suddenly so important?

sorry but as much I like Google I don't want them running the O/S on my phone.

~~~
wvenable
Symbian is hell on developers. It is a platform, but it's not really
used/marketed as a platform.

~~~
shimi
S60 is a platform, Symbian is an OS

And you're right about the development, its hell!!!!

I just want to add, the J60 isn't as good as the Android's Java environment
(not even close), and it carries the penalty of the J2ME slogan write once
test everywhere (to the point where different open S60 devices will behave
differently)

Symbian week point is its development environment, I imagine they will have to
respond in that front in the next versions.

