
Android has won: now what? - KorPhaeron
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Android-has-won-now-what-1828041.html
======
cmsj
It's interesting that we still look at platforms through the lens of
Microsoft's Windows. That was a platform which achieved market dominance and
generated huge revenues for its creators by way of significant licensing
costs. They then also sold content (typically software - Office and various
back end tools) to end users at high cost and ate a huge portion of the
overall software market revenue. We view high market share as winning because
usually it brings high revenues and that means high margins.

Today we have something that looks a bit like the PC market did in the 80s -
lots of competing platforms, some doing well, others not. Android has not yet
achieved the market dominance that DOS/Windows did (i.e. 90+ percent) and it
certainly isn't generating anywhere near the kind of revenue for its creators,
Google, that DOS/Windows/Office/etc did for Microsoft. Most of the revenue
instead appears to be going to Samsung, but even that is only a minority of
the revenue for the whole market - by far the largest share is going to Apple.

So how do we define Android has having "won"? It has no overwhelming market
share, its future looks uncertain (as mentioned in the linked article) and
it's only making any serious money for a company that didn't even create it.
This puts the claims of winning under serious strain, but they just won't go
away.

We should want lots of competing platforms. Competition is good for us. Trying
to decide that someone has "won" just so we can be the one who called it most
decisively, is stupid and short sighted (but understandable, given the
desperation of journalists, who like Microsoft, find themselves having to
shout louder and louder to be noticed at all). We should resist another dark
age like the one we endured under Windows, before post-PC computing made
Microsoft charmingly irrelevant.

Sure it's nice to grind an axe against nasty nasty Apple, or poke fun at
Android selling lots of shitty cheap phones made from 2 year old OSes, or to
laugh at Ballmer telling us Windows Phone is going to do really well.

It would be nicer if we could recognise that we have multiple really good
choices available to us and that is a good thing.

Unfortunately we are selfish, tribal creatures, so our wallets and our social
graphs will vote this into a monopoly, just like last time.

~~~
macavity23
Agree with your analysis, but I'm not so sure it will end up with a monopoly.
Stickiness amongst iPhone users is very high. I think something like an 70/20
android/iPhone split, with apple taking most of the highest-value users, would
be a stable equilibrium - if there is such a thing in such a young market.

------
ebbv
What is the point of this article? Android has sold more phones almost since
the beginning. So what?

The article announces victory on tablets based on predictions. So far the iPad
continues to dominate in reality, though. Again, so what?

The only point of this article seems to be "If you view technology like sports
and Android is your team, let's gloat in our victory!" Which is dumb on so
many levels.

EDIT:

Looks like OP is just a shill account for this really low quality site.

~~~
WayneDB
Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool
technology that we all love? What's the point of your post?

Besides that, I think the point was clearly made in the title. What's wrong
with viewing tech competitors as sports teams? Do you have a problem with
sports?

~~~
ebbv
> Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool
> technology that we all love?

Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the
definition.

> What's the point of your post?

That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned
for being a shill for a poor quality site.

> What's wrong with viewing tech competitors as sports teams?

It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company
based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products
based on what suits your needs and tastes best. Maybe for a period of time
there will be one company that keeps doing that perfectly, but you should
continue to examine the competition and give them a fair shake. Unlike sports
teams.

That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here.

~~~
WayneDB
> _Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the
> definition._

That's one definition of discussion. Here's one for talking - "Verb. Speak in
order to give information or express ideas or feelings."

The article made many points. However, maybe next time they should notify you
so you can judge them first.

>

> _That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned
> for being a shill for a poor quality site._

Well your honor, it seems like the other root commenters on this post were
able to find something to talk about from the article.

I wouldn't call it spam. As a matter of fact, I learned something new while
reading it. I won't bother telling you what it is because you'd probably
attack me with more of your vitriol.

>

> _It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a
> company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose
> products based on what suits your needs and tastes best._

Should? According to you. I hold the view that people should do what they want
within reason. You however seem to want to censor anything that you don't
agree with.

>

> _That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on
> here._

You sound like a know it all asshole bully who got offended because someone
stepped on his toe. I can't believe I had to call you out here.

------
qompiler
Unix style fragmentation* is inevitable. We already have version
fragmentation.

"To make matters worse, the big new players in the Unix market promptly
committed major strategic blunders. One was to seek advantage by product
differentiation — a tactic which resulted in the interfaces of different
Unixes diverging. This threw away cross-platform compatibility and fragmented
the Unix market." - <http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch02s01.html>

~~~
PommeDeTerre
The product differentiation did offer some major benefits, though.

It's what allowed IRIX to be used to perform graphics-related tasks that
basically couldn't be done before, or on other systems.

It's what allowed SunOS and later Solaris to become extremely powerful
workstation operating systems.

It's what allowed AIX and HP-UX to excel as server operating systems.

Only within the past few years (a couple of decades after the so-called "UNIX
wars") have we seen Linux getting to the point of being a single system that
can cover such vastly different areas sufficiently. Even then, the experience
still isn't as smooth as it was on more focused systems back in the 1980s.

------
Zigurd
There are several things wrong with this analysis. First among them is the
supposition that Android is rudderless without Andy Rubin.

Android has won, on mobile handsets, in an explosive way, in the past three
years. It is time now to consolidate that victory.

Android has a whole other area to conquer, in tablets, in the workplace,
displacing PCs instead of feature phones and failed smartphone platforms. What
Google product already dominates in PCs? Chrome browser.

If Google simply knocks the rough edges off the process of becoming a Google
Logo and/or Nexus OEM, Android is going to continue to mop up the remaining
handset and tablet OEMs and expand into PC OEMs entering the tablet business.

Maintaining the blistering rate of Android versions with meaningful innovation
will not be easy, but there are still plenty of units in the handset and
tablet world to conquer.

------
alexobenauer
"That's because few outside the main cities can afford high-end iPhones, and
most opt for low-cost Androids instead."

A statement like that absolutely needs a citation.

------
k__
Now what?

They should put their work-force into building high end browsers for iOS and
Android and get of our backs with their native app frameworks ;)

~~~
coldtea
Yes, let's bring the mobile phone experience 10 to 20 years backwards, letting
only what can be done with the hodge-podge that is HTML5 be available.

------
madaxe
What the hell? Android has won? Have you ever looked at statistics for device
usage?

Here's a neat little graph of about 200M unique users over the last year,
mostly from the US and UK.

Either we have a very odd sample (unlikely, broad basket of eCommerce sites),
or, well, Android sure as shit ain't dominant.

<http://imgur.com/6eQpsOC>

Oh, and people buy iOS for Christmas, not Android...

<http://imgur.com/AbhnF08>

~~~
coldtea
> _Either we have a very odd sample (unlikely, broad basket of eCommerce
> sites), or, well, Android sure as shit ain't dominant._

It is. Just with the wrong crowd: mostly people that don't care much about
smartphones and got a low tier Android phone for free with their contracts.

So it has won on volume, but not on the people that matter (both financially,
ie those buying with higher margins, and technologically, ie the most tech
savvy).

Which also explains why over 50% of Android phones run 1 or 2 years old
Android versions.

