Google's Better iPhone(thedailybeast.com)
thedailybeast.com
Google's Better iPhone
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-06/googles-better-iphone/
6 comments
> I don't think a normal consumer will ever choose an inferior open phone over a closed one with more capabilities.
Yep. There are only two ways to "beat" Apple at this point: install Android on the freebee (< $100 unsubsidized) phones with basic contracts that 99% of the world uses (this would be the Microsoft strategy), or honestly build a better product than Apple. Given the limitations of the average cell phone, I can't decide which path is more difficult.
People continue to claim that an OS will dominate all of the non-Apple smartphones out there. Symbian is already there and no one is talking about how dominant they are. Dethroning the iPhone is clearly going to be more difficult than most of the cacophonous mouthpieces realize, so my advise to them is to stop making your future self look bad, and think harder.
Yep. There are only two ways to "beat" Apple at this point: install Android on the freebee (< $100 unsubsidized) phones with basic contracts that 99% of the world uses (this would be the Microsoft strategy), or honestly build a better product than Apple. Given the limitations of the average cell phone, I can't decide which path is more difficult.
People continue to claim that an OS will dominate all of the non-Apple smartphones out there. Symbian is already there and no one is talking about how dominant they are. Dethroning the iPhone is clearly going to be more difficult than most of the cacophonous mouthpieces realize, so my advise to them is to stop making your future self look bad, and think harder.
You have nailed it...
When apple introduced the iPhone, it became a big to-do because it was 10x better (at least?) than anything else on the market. "Me-too-ing" the iPhone (palm?) (android in another year) isn't going to get you there. The trouble is, Apple had a lot of opportunity -- 3.5 years ago, if you looked at a cell phone, it was absolutely clear that a LOT of things needed to be done. Apple simply executed on those things, but did so in an absolutely stunning way -- it just worked. And it worked in a way that most of us didn't realize was possible.
The second idea -- that a low cost version can work, I think is valid. But then, is that the chunk of the market that you want? To be another dell, making $4 per unit? Do carriers even want the smart phone that doesn't come with the data contract?
As for openness, as the other commenters have pointed out, most people don't care. If something ends up happening that causes people to actually care about the openness (or lack there of), than Android will be well positioned. For now, with 75k apps, we certainly haven't seen it (regardless of how many rejection horror stories we hear about on hacker news or techmeme).
When apple introduced the iPhone, it became a big to-do because it was 10x better (at least?) than anything else on the market. "Me-too-ing" the iPhone (palm?) (android in another year) isn't going to get you there. The trouble is, Apple had a lot of opportunity -- 3.5 years ago, if you looked at a cell phone, it was absolutely clear that a LOT of things needed to be done. Apple simply executed on those things, but did so in an absolutely stunning way -- it just worked. And it worked in a way that most of us didn't realize was possible.
The second idea -- that a low cost version can work, I think is valid. But then, is that the chunk of the market that you want? To be another dell, making $4 per unit? Do carriers even want the smart phone that doesn't come with the data contract?
As for openness, as the other commenters have pointed out, most people don't care. If something ends up happening that causes people to actually care about the openness (or lack there of), than Android will be well positioned. For now, with 75k apps, we certainly haven't seen it (regardless of how many rejection horror stories we hear about on hacker news or techmeme).
I hinted at this in another post, but I want to detail it a bit.
In short: I think you're wrong. Android can win this by me-too'ing the iphone as long as it has strong differentiation in hardware.
Do you want a small stick phone? How about a blackberry style one with a physical keyboard? What about something flashy like the side-kick? Do you want a highly customizable phone with brightly colored cases and add-ons? Android can rise to address those quirks. That high level of segmentation shouldn't be discounted.
A cell phone isn't just about software. It's a highly personal choice. If Android succeeds in becoming a mobile operating system with a vibrant 3rd party application base... well then they can win by appealing to a large number of segments through support of a number of form-factors.
The issue of course being that supporting all of those form factors in anything resembling a consistent way is VERY difficult. It's something Symbian has never really figured out. If anyone can...it's Google.
In short: I think you're wrong. Android can win this by me-too'ing the iphone as long as it has strong differentiation in hardware.
Do you want a small stick phone? How about a blackberry style one with a physical keyboard? What about something flashy like the side-kick? Do you want a highly customizable phone with brightly colored cases and add-ons? Android can rise to address those quirks. That high level of segmentation shouldn't be discounted.
A cell phone isn't just about software. It's a highly personal choice. If Android succeeds in becoming a mobile operating system with a vibrant 3rd party application base... well then they can win by appealing to a large number of segments through support of a number of form-factors.
The issue of course being that supporting all of those form factors in anything resembling a consistent way is VERY difficult. It's something Symbian has never really figured out. If anyone can...it's Google.
Thats a valid point -- the big issue on this one is, how do you handle the varied screen size/varied capabilities dilemma? Or rather, how do you get developers to target so many different devices? I think you get stuck with devs building for the lowest common denominator.
To illustrate the point, consider an imaginary situation where a android has 3 phones on the market, with equally split distribution:
1) black and white 200x300 screen
2) color 320x480 screen
3) color 800x600 screen
Which one do developers build for?
Multiply this by different capabilities (one has a compass, the others don't. One has a high quality graphics chip, the others don't, etc.) In this latter case, you can really see that it will be difficult to get a significant amount of developers to take advantage of all the capabilities of the phone.
I think gruber talked about this a while back, but all I could find with a quick search was this: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/09/24/g1-flaws
Which one do developers build for?
Multiply this by different capabilities (one has a compass, the others don't. One has a high quality graphics chip, the others don't, etc.) In this latter case, you can really see that it will be difficult to get a significant amount of developers to take advantage of all the capabilities of the phone.
I think gruber talked about this a while back, but all I could find with a quick search was this: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/09/24/g1-flaws
Just because no one is talking about it doesn't make it less relevant. Globally Symbian IS dominant, and Apple has only made small in-roads in overall market terms.
Clearly it's not because Symbian is a solid OS. S60 is a usability abortion and UIQ is basically DOA. The Japanese mutant versions are hardly any better. Hell S60 basically failed at launching a touch-screen version.
What they do have is a boat-load of devices. Nokia alone covers basically every segment imaginable from the very high end to the very low. They've taken a shotgun approach that very directly targets individual consumer preferences.
Android is headed down the same road, except with a MUCH more polished product. Is it as good as the iPhone? I don't think so. Is it 'close enough'... I think it is, and it's only going to get better. With something like 18 phones coming out and widespread carrier pentration, I think this is a done deal. Android, in the United States in particular, is going to assume a dominant market share position.
What does that mean for developers? I have no idea. The jury is still out as to what the demographic make-up of those users will come to look like. Will they buy apps? Will they support a app-store style eco-system? Will they use the web features and consume data like iPhone users? I have no idea, and really can't come up with anything resembling a sensible guess.
I think Apple believes they have the premium user cornered. I think they're betting that the types of users drawn to Android phones won't provide very much market value. That is why they've stuck to this position.
The whole thing is very Mac/PC all over again. I wish I knew how it was going to play out in the end.
Clearly it's not because Symbian is a solid OS. S60 is a usability abortion and UIQ is basically DOA. The Japanese mutant versions are hardly any better. Hell S60 basically failed at launching a touch-screen version.
What they do have is a boat-load of devices. Nokia alone covers basically every segment imaginable from the very high end to the very low. They've taken a shotgun approach that very directly targets individual consumer preferences.
Android is headed down the same road, except with a MUCH more polished product. Is it as good as the iPhone? I don't think so. Is it 'close enough'... I think it is, and it's only going to get better. With something like 18 phones coming out and widespread carrier pentration, I think this is a done deal. Android, in the United States in particular, is going to assume a dominant market share position.
What does that mean for developers? I have no idea. The jury is still out as to what the demographic make-up of those users will come to look like. Will they buy apps? Will they support a app-store style eco-system? Will they use the web features and consume data like iPhone users? I have no idea, and really can't come up with anything resembling a sensible guess.
I think Apple believes they have the premium user cornered. I think they're betting that the types of users drawn to Android phones won't provide very much market value. That is why they've stuck to this position.
The whole thing is very Mac/PC all over again. I wish I knew how it was going to play out in the end.
Heck, the Blackberry OS is terrible on even worse hardware, but still manages to sell a metric truck load.
There's nothing about Android that guarantees that Android phones will always be inferior to the iPhone. HTC has made great strides toward rivaling the iPhone's hardware. I suspect, with more and more Android phones coming on the market, and with Android's openness, the apps and improved stability will soon follow, and the iPhone will be left in the dust.
> But I don't think most consumers care.
They may not care about openness directly, but openness usually leads to more possibilities. Consumers will care about the new features and possibilities that openness welcomes.
They may not care about openness directly, but openness usually leads to more possibilities. Consumers will care about the new features and possibilities that openness welcomes.
But I think it's an issue of degree. The iPhone IS OPEN to a large extent. Enough to produce 75,000 applications after all. The question really is "Do consumers care about the openness that separates Android from the iPhone"
But the openness doesn't affect consumers directly. It affects developers first. So a more open platform gives way to more possibilities. And the iphone platform has a $99 fee, which is probably a deterrent to hobbyists. Then on top of that is the closed app store subject to Apple's arbitrary approval. The closed store is probably the biggest hinderance of possibilities.
You can already see examples of Apple losing features because of its closed platform: no google talk, among other things.
And I think it's only a matter of time the rest of Android get's polished up. But the main point is that while Apple has primacy and great design as it's advantage, Google has the openness as its advantage.
You can already see examples of Apple losing features because of its closed platform: no google talk, among other things.
And I think it's only a matter of time the rest of Android get's polished up. But the main point is that while Apple has primacy and great design as it's advantage, Google has the openness as its advantage.
"But I don't think a normal consumer will ever choose an inferior open phone over a closed one with more capabilities."
Developers will, which will hopefully lead to consumers following suit after cool stuff gets built.
Developers will, which will hopefully lead to consumers following suit after cool stuff gets built.
I think that the iPhone has reached a critical mass in terms of developers. If the android will gain market share it probably will not take too much from the iPhone as a result. Remember this is not a zero sum game.
I have a T-Mobile G1. My girlfriend has an iPhone. There is just no comparison. Hands down, the iPhone is a better handset altogether in every imaginable way. Comparing the iPhone to Android is like comparing the Mac experience to Windows. While they both have similar feature sets, the entire end-to-end experience is significantly more polished and user-friendly.
But maybe that's the point. Windows won in the end (at least market share wise). I think the key for Google is to (a) work with phone providers to get the price point below the cheapest iPhone and (b) manage to copy enough of the iPhone interface to approximate the look and feel to someone comparing in the store (true elegance is only clear after using a iphone for a while).
No one would argue Windows 3.11 was as elegant as the MacOS but it had a mouse/icon based interface and sold for half the price.
(I actually made a blog post on this a year or so ago (http://www.tomstechblog.com/post/Android-vs-iPhone-Can-Googl...) if you have a couple minutes to spare)
No one would argue Windows 3.11 was as elegant as the MacOS but it had a mouse/icon based interface and sold for half the price.
(I actually made a blog post on this a year or so ago (http://www.tomstechblog.com/post/Android-vs-iPhone-Can-Googl...) if you have a couple minutes to spare)
Windows won in the end (at least market share wise).
When was the end?
When was the end?
"I have a T-Mobile G1. My girlfriend has an iPhone. There is just no comparison. Hands down, the iPhone is a better handset altogether in every imaginable way."
This is purely subjective.
I have a G1 and like it more than I've liked any iPhone I've used. Especially after the latest build release (donut!), which I've seen incredible stability and performance increases with.
This is purely subjective.
I have a G1 and like it more than I've liked any iPhone I've used. Especially after the latest build release (donut!), which I've seen incredible stability and performance increases with.
It's funny, these articles about how Apple is doomed because of a pending software/hardware release remind me of the good old days where people on Slashdot would say Windows' time was up since the new version of Linux distro foobar was going to beat it.
It might have ended up true, in a sense, but by that point nobody really cared anymore, the world had changed. I think the same thing is going to happen here -- Apple has such a ridiculous head start in this market that by the time we can look out and see what looks to be a healthy ecosystem it will probably be well past the point anyone really cares and have moved onto the next big thing.
It might have ended up true, in a sense, but by that point nobody really cared anymore, the world had changed. I think the same thing is going to happen here -- Apple has such a ridiculous head start in this market that by the time we can look out and see what looks to be a healthy ecosystem it will probably be well past the point anyone really cares and have moved onto the next big thing.
His article is all well and good, and I don't blame him for the case of shaudenfreude - but all this talk means nothing until verizon or google actually do something. It's been all talk and no walk from top to bottom.
Palm Pre? Supposedly it was the top contender ... but I have yet to see anyone walking around with one in the wild. That's a fact.
Palm Pre? Supposedly it was the top contender ... but I have yet to see anyone walking around with one in the wild. That's a fact.
It seems so unbelievable too, I mean, that Palm guy said it was going to rule: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/03/05/palm-pre-iphone ;-)
"That's right: The biggest and most notoriously closed wireless carrier on Earth is partnering with the biggest and most open Internet company ever, to bring Google's new Android phone platform to users who want a truly expandable smart phone, yet still require a robust and dependable carrier."
Anyone who thinks that Verizon's Android phones will be 'open' has never written mobile software that'll run on their network. I'm really hoping to be wrong about this, but historically Verizon's track-record is to lock down any platform on their network.
Anyone who thinks that Verizon's Android phones will be 'open' has never written mobile software that'll run on their network. I'm really hoping to be wrong about this, but historically Verizon's track-record is to lock down any platform on their network.
I wonder how many Android users it will take to overwhelm Verizon's network as badly as the iPhone users have overwhelmed ATT's.
I suppose it depend on how good Android gets [i.e. whether people will use it as heavily as they do the iPhone].
I suppose it depend on how good Android gets [i.e. whether people will use it as heavily as they do the iPhone].
Google will win the Cell Phone Wars if they can iterate fast enough to become "Good Enough" to Apple's "Great". That's what worked for Microsoft. But I don't think a normal consumer will ever choose an inferior open phone over a closed one with more capabilities.