

IPhone vs. Android: Will Apple-Microsoft history repeat itself? - yumraj
http://rpaliwal.blogspot.com/2009/07/iphone-vs-android-will-apple-microsoft.html

======
roc
Couple thoughts:

Developing for Android involves their odd little JVM; Objective C on a more
traditional UNIX architecture is more familiar to more developers.

(A development Mac is a bit of a roadblock, but not much.)

The 'Apple tax' in the handheld space is negligible. It's more in line with
the absolute value of 'apple tax' in the mp3 market than in the laptop market;
let alone the desktop market of 1984.

Being even _just a little_ clunkier is a much bigger deal when you're talking
about very short session times.

But perhaps the biggest difference: Apple no longer particularly cares. If
they make mad profit off the top 10% of the market, they won't waste a thought
toward what's powering the other 90%.

------
Zak
I hope so. Nice as the iPhone may be, Apple's need to control the user
experience makes the platform rather unattractive to me as a developer (i.e.
they might not allow me to sell my app for arbitrary reasons I cannot know in
advance), and I think ultimately not good for the user.

Ultimately, I feel that if I buy a device, it's _mine_ , and I should be the
only one deciding what may or may not be installed on it.

------
jemmons
No.

------
sound2man
Maybe, but more elegant android software would have to be developed. Much as I
personally don't like the touchscreen only design, lack of removable battery
and lack of expandable storage, I have to admit that it is a very sleek piece
of hardware.

All android phones that I have seen are rather clunky and outdated in
appearance, IMHO. Put android on something like the palm pre, and you have a
real win.

~~~
ajross
That's precicely the logic that was applied in the old mac vs. PC arguments.
The PS/2's were clunkers, clones were shoddy OEM boxes. Macs, in the early
90's, were sleek, integrated machines with an out-of-box experience inarguably
superior to anything on the market.

And macs were _crushed_ in the early 90's. Apple was lucky to have survived.

The truth is that not all users share your aesthetic sense. Lots of folks are
swayed by features that an iPhone user might think are meaningless checklist
items (like a physical keyboard!). There will always be a market for the
iPhone, I'm sure. But its aesthetics alone will not preserve its dominance. It
has to actually work better. This doesn't help.

Is Android as slick as the iPhone? No, not yet. Nor are the market apps as
numerous or featureful as those in the app store. But it's _close_ , and over
time it's getting closer. Apple needs to compete on features, not lock-in.

~~~
herval
as far as I remember (please correct me if I'm wrong), old macs where buggy
(and not easier to use) than machines with windows 3.1 or something...? Being
usability a very important piece of aesthetics...

That and the fact that Apple's CEO in the 90's switched the focus from great
user experience to 'attack all possible markets' with a dozen different (often
competing with its other products) is, I'd say, the main reason why they fared
so bad in the 90's...

~~~
easp
Yeah, you are wrong. In the windows 3.1 era, macs were at least as stable and
much easier to use and maintain than the Microsoft alternatives. It wasn't
really until Windows 95 came out that the stability of macs started to fall
behind. Windows continued to close the gap on usabilitiy and ease of upkeep,
but I'd argue that apple started opening their lead again once OS X was
desktop ready.

There are a lot of reasons for Apple's failures in the 90s. Many of their
wounds were self-inflicted. They f The original System 8 was finally
incomplete when it was cancelled well after it was expected to ship. It's
successor also died in the womb or crib. Jobs's team finally got things in
line by creating a roadmap for improving the legacy OS, readying OS X, and
smoothing the tradition between the two.

With competent leadership, Apple might have fared better in the later 90s, but
I still think Microsoft would have remained the biggest benificiary of the
growth of the market. Wintel just had better looking upfront costs at a time
when people didn't think as much about ongoing costs. This led to a positive
feedback on economies of scale, installed base, and software availability.

