
What Android's really about (hint: not the iPhone) - sanj
I realized this morning what Google's Android initiative reminded me of.  Not the iPhone, DOS.<p>If you look at the handheld development market today, it looks disturbingly like the 8-bit computer market from the early 1980s:<p>- multiple incompatible APIs<p>- multiple chipsets<p>- multiple peripheral mechanism<p>- multiple UIs<p>
What IBM did was to create a piece of hardware which everyone bought into.  And built it out of generic enough parts that it could be cloned.  I'm not sure who the equivalent player this time around.<p>More importantly, however, Microsoft made DOS the standard API set for all of those clone manufacturers.  Software developers could now code for IBM machines and have it works on a thriving infrastructure for all flavours of clones.<p>Google is attempting to follow the same model by creating a compelling, large, consistent set of phone with a standard API.  They're giving it away, in the same manner that Microsoft (inadvertently) did in the 1980's.<p>This is the game that is afoot.  From this standpoint, the iPhone is the Amiga: beautiful, functional, better than everything else, and doomed because it doesn't have the API.<p>It is also important to note that while it isn't clear that Google will succeed at this, Microsoft is certain to fail.  Handheld application development on Windows Mobile is a freakin' mess.  And each successive generation of the product gets worse, both from a UI and an API standpoint.<p>This also explains Java as a development environment: it is the VisualBasic of today. The goal is not to enable the l33t haxxors using Ruby and OCaml and Erlang.  It is to unleash the masses of coders that need to write a quick little application to make your barber's appt book link up to his chair scheduler.<p>Android = DOS
======
mich
I find the elitism here too funny. Most people seem to think that using Ruby
or LISP makes them superior to _thosepoor Java programmers_ while in the end
all they are creating is a web-app like _twitter_ (and of course think they
are changing the world with this!). There are many Java programmers that are
better than you.

And yes, as mentioned before they are using JVM which means you aren't limited
to a single language(Java).

~~~
davidw
Actually, they aren't using the JVM, but the Dalvik VM.

~~~
michaelneale
Can we agree to call it Dalek? So much cooler, yet so much more trademarked
(unless trademarks expire??)

------
pg
Yeah, seemed this way to me too. Except I don't agree about VB:

(a) In the heyday of DOS, people used all sorts of languages. Some of the
first DOS programs I wrote were in Prolog.

(b) If the best hackers don't want to build stuff on your platform, you're in
big trouble. Hard as it seems to imagine now, DOS was impressive in the mid
80s, and smart people wrote apps for it.

I don't think Google is deliberately courting mediocre hackers by using Java.
It was probably just the expedient choice for some reason.

~~~
jey
" _I don't think Google is deliberately courting mediocre hackers by using
Java. It was probably just the expedient choice for some reason._ "

They're choosing the Java Virtual Machine, not Java itself. Java just happens
to the be standard example of a language which targets the JVM. Using the JVM
is a prudent choice since many tools already exist which target this platform,
it's sandboxed, and it's hardware platform-independent. You already have
implementations of many languages targeting the JVM including Java, Python,
and Ruby.

In fact, the JVM bytecodes are then recompiled to their special VM's object
format, called Dalvit. Using the JVM as the common layer allows them to fit
into the existing software ecosystem without causing pain for developers and
language implementors.

~~~
imsteve
The jvm is just bad at accommodating dynamic languages though, unfortunately.
Similar was the fate of parrot. At the moment this idea is more of an academic
dream.

~~~
jey
Why's that? Sure, you have to ship some more support code (parts of the
language runtime) as part of the compiled bytecode, but that just increases
the size of the bytecode somewhat. It's not a fatal problem at all.

Parrot always seemed like an odd idea to me, but I just assumed that there
must be enough to be gained by doing such a high level VM if people were
bothering to write it.

~~~
imsteve
No, it's not about size. Of course not.

I was referring to performance and ease of adapting the JVM's way of doing
things internally to very different languages. This is quoting a number of
parrot and jython developers. I have the links around here somewhere..

Why do you think jython et all are so terribly far behind? It's not for
shortage of interest, more because the likely possible outcome of this could
only be sub-par.

------
connellybarnes
Visual Basic was great. Maybe barely usable as a language alone, but great
because it allowed you to do lots GUI-wise with little code.

As far as great hackers having an effect on much of anything, as long as most
corporations continue to ignore disparities in skill among programmers and pay
them all equally, the more skilled craftpeople naturally will be driven away
from the average corporation, into areas like research, stock trading,
startups, or the safe umbrella of Google, where they are either compensated in
money or in being not treated like kids. This is perfectly natural (indeed,
I'm surprised that many skilled white collar workers in other professions are
willing to work at the average corporation). But in the meantime, the skilled
craftspeople have little effect on the mainstream development of computer
programming, which is done by the large corporations. Thus "skilled hackers"
are neither here nor there in the development of things of late, and this
shouldn't be surprising.

------
jsjenkins168
I hate to say it, but handheld application development on Windows Mobile
(using VS2005) is actually quite good (comparatively speaking). Deploying and
testing to a Windows Mobile handset is seamless and tightly integrated. But
thats what you get when you have propriety development environment and mobile
platform designed specifically to talk together.

Android is platform and dev environment agnostic which is impressive given how
feature rich the API is. And it should be possible to become language agnostic
too, if a compiler can be created to compile code down to the native Dalvik
byte code used by the Android VM.

I think Google needs to get on the ball and create compilers for other
languages if they expect to attract developers who really matter - hackers.

~~~
sanj
The issue isn't one developer working with a single device.

My concern is for places like this:

<http://patientkeeper.com>

That have hundreds, if not thousands, of devices per installation, purchased
over the course of years.

We found that limiting ourselves to a _very_ small subset of the available
devices on the market was the only way to manage. Otherwise the support staff
was awash in calls from physicians running into issues with their new, whizzy
phone.

I feel that is Windows Mobile's biggest problem: you end up programming to a
handset.

------
kajecounterhack
Point taken, google stock is down more than 60 bucks from the peak...time to
buy!

Uh, but not because of this. Because I'm not so sure you can just take a
comparison like this and make it equate. Unlike in the Era of PCs, there are
already quite a few established smartphone OSes. DOS had relatively smaller
competition in terms of personal computer OSes. Theres linux based OSes now,
then of course the Apple, Palm OS actually is still alive somewhat, then Win
Mobile. Its still a different ballgame. And remember that the open handset
isn't all inclusive, there are those that havent joined.

though not many, so I do see your point. And its a good one. But of course we
should know that it doesnt completely equate.

~~~
michaelneale
If my memory serves correct, back when DOS was around it was a Zoo of many
Oses, basically each hardware platform had some variant and very incompatible
OS. So I think that part of the analogy holds.

------
jimbokun
Hmm, so where does Joel's NewSDK fit into this analogy?

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/18.html>

It looks like there are (at least) two simultaneous battles going on to
establish new APIs. One for cell phone hardware. One for "web applications".
Interesting that Google is heavily invested in both.

~~~
tlrobinson
Who's to say that the two can't be the same?

Though I don't think the "winner" won't come from Google.

~~~
tlrobinson
Whoaaaa, double negative, my bad. What I meant to say was

"Though I don't think the "winner" will come from Google."

------
nsimpson
"What IBM did was to create a piece of hardware which everyone bought into.
And built it out of generic enough parts that it could be cloned. I'm not sure
who the equivalent player this time around."

\-- I don't think there is an equivalent to IBM in the handset market.

IBM had a powerful steamroller when it came to branding, sales and cash - most
people hopped on the PC Compatible standard (including DOS) because it was the
"sure thing". Not because DOS was inherently more open than, say, CP/M.

Google has a similar steamroller (at least in the respect that to a lot of
people, Google = Internet) but unless most people are demanding a "Google
Phone" then handset makers aren't going to fall over themselves to hand over
their lunch to google.

Google and the developer community will have to build something pretty
incredible and build a lot of mind-share with the general public, I think.

------
stcredzero
There's no fundamental reason why the iPhone couldn't have Android as well, or
at least some level of compatibility. Also, if Android = DOS, I note that DOS
did not end up a big win for IBM, who made the hardware. In fact, DOS was one
of the standards that helped to turn hardware into a commodity.

~~~
sanj
I should have been more clear:

Android = DOS GOOG = MSFT

not IBM.

~~~
sadiq
The different thing is that much of this Google platform is open source,
whereas DOS very much wasn't.

~~~
sanj
The API is the thing to own.

------
alaskamiller
Wait wait wait... who actually did think this was in response to iPhone?

------
ayc
> it looks disturbingly like the 8-bit computer market from the early 1980s

No, handhelds is mature market with more than 10 years history. There is
already known winner processor - ARM (of different vendors but compatible).
Others (MIPS, SH3 and Motorola are gone).

Android is competitor for the Windows CE and Symbian. But WindowsCE still
looks stronger. Android's one (and only one for now) strong feature - it's
open license. Java - ... - hope they will replace it soon with something
scriptable. Or just add something, if they want all this J2ME.

~~~
sanj
Yes, at the chip level, the ARM has won.

My point is that the APIs across phones are very much up for grabs.

An additional "strong feature" for Android is its price: free.

------
shayan
Android is built on Google's own Java

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=79328>

------
aditya
what's in it for Google? MSFT _sold_ DOS and became rich, GOOG is giving
Android away.

------
eusman
mobile phone companies release new phones every 3 months to a bigger audience.
The numbers are totally different than the DOS era when you bought a PC and
expected to spend 3 years with it...

There is and will be room for more players. Google just wants its piece of the
pie...

multiple vendors, different OSs and different UIs over the years is why the
Web just worked and will continue to be the biggest common platform no matter
if Android or Anti-Android comes along.

------
michaelneale
All makes sense except for grouping Ruby with OCaml and Erlang - its not in
the same league of hackers at all anymore.

------
pi3832
Where's Symbian in all this?

~~~
kirse
Currently adopted as the OS of choice for 73% of smartphones.

~~~
michaelneale
Precisely the reason I haven't bothered to own smartphone until now. I am
content to let my friends cuss at their flaky unresponsive operating system
and browsers that can't render anything accurately.

~~~
kirse
My Nokia N95-8gb would beg to differ. It's not Symbian's fault that Nokia took
two years to finally give their smartphones enough memory.

[http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/reviews/item/Nokia_N95_8GB.ph...](http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/reviews/item/Nokia_N95_8GB.php)
See "The changes" and tell your friends to upgrade =)

