Steve Wozniak: Android will be the dominant smartphone platform(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Steve Wozniak: Android will be the dominant smartphone platform
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/steve-wozniak-android-will-be-the-dominant-smartphone-platform/
11 comments
"Apple will become the Apple of the phone market much as it was the Apple of personal computer market."
No offense, but this is probably the most banal argument imaginable.
"There is a myth, more of a meme actually, about the 'inevitability' of commoditization. It is a view of the world that sees things linearly, in terms of singularities, and the so-called "one right path."
In this realm, where commoditization is God, horizontal orientation (versus vertical integration) rules the roost. How else to define consumers, not in flesh and blood terms, not as spirits that aspire to specific outcomes, but rather, as a composite set of loosely-coupled attributes.
This mindset is compelling because it is simple and familiar, but it also leads to blind obsequiousness.
Historical edifices are held as indelible fact. "It's Microsoft v. Apple all over again." "There has to be one absolute, dominant leader." "Open will always prevail -- and should prevail -- over proprietary systems." "Market share matters above all else. Even profits."
There is one small fly in the ointment to this ethos, however, and its name is Apple."
Later:
"The following inconvenient facts must be an affront to the horizontal, commoditized, open, market share zealots. Apple has launched three major new product lines since 2001: the iPod (October, 2001); the iPhone (July, 2007); and the iPad (April, 2010).
The company’s stock is up 3,000 percent since the launch of iPod, 125 percent since the launch of iPhone, and 20 percent since the launch of iPad.
In that same time period, the major devotees of the loosely coupled model — Microsoft, Google, Intel and Dell — have been, at best, outpaced by Apple 6X (in the case of Google dating back to the launch of iPod) and at worst, either been wiped out (in the case of Dell) or treaded water (in the cases of Microsoft and Intel) in every comparison period."
From: http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/09/apple-segmentation-strategy...
No offense, but this is probably the most banal argument imaginable.
"There is a myth, more of a meme actually, about the 'inevitability' of commoditization. It is a view of the world that sees things linearly, in terms of singularities, and the so-called "one right path."
In this realm, where commoditization is God, horizontal orientation (versus vertical integration) rules the roost. How else to define consumers, not in flesh and blood terms, not as spirits that aspire to specific outcomes, but rather, as a composite set of loosely-coupled attributes.
This mindset is compelling because it is simple and familiar, but it also leads to blind obsequiousness.
Historical edifices are held as indelible fact. "It's Microsoft v. Apple all over again." "There has to be one absolute, dominant leader." "Open will always prevail -- and should prevail -- over proprietary systems." "Market share matters above all else. Even profits."
There is one small fly in the ointment to this ethos, however, and its name is Apple."
Later:
"The following inconvenient facts must be an affront to the horizontal, commoditized, open, market share zealots. Apple has launched three major new product lines since 2001: the iPod (October, 2001); the iPhone (July, 2007); and the iPad (April, 2010).
The company’s stock is up 3,000 percent since the launch of iPod, 125 percent since the launch of iPhone, and 20 percent since the launch of iPad.
In that same time period, the major devotees of the loosely coupled model — Microsoft, Google, Intel and Dell — have been, at best, outpaced by Apple 6X (in the case of Google dating back to the launch of iPod) and at worst, either been wiped out (in the case of Dell) or treaded water (in the cases of Microsoft and Intel) in every comparison period."
From: http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/09/apple-segmentation-strategy...
Agreed.
Additionally, this takes on a second, perhaps more significant meaning: if the Apple of the smartphone market is the same Apple of the MP3 player market, then you're looking at a very different outcome. Think about this harder guys: is designing and building a phone closer to building an iPod or a desktop?
The Mac vs. PC analogy is inadequately nuanced to be taken seriously. The mobile market doesn't resemble the PC market nearly as closely as people would like to think. I'd encourage people to think about it more deeply. The app lead and cost advantages enjoyed by clone makers does not exist in this market. Also this is a consumer driven market and not a business driven market, so factors like design and ease of use weigh in more heavily to buying decisions than they did in the PC market.
Additionally, this takes on a second, perhaps more significant meaning: if the Apple of the smartphone market is the same Apple of the MP3 player market, then you're looking at a very different outcome. Think about this harder guys: is designing and building a phone closer to building an iPod or a desktop?
The Mac vs. PC analogy is inadequately nuanced to be taken seriously. The mobile market doesn't resemble the PC market nearly as closely as people would like to think. I'd encourage people to think about it more deeply. The app lead and cost advantages enjoyed by clone makers does not exist in this market. Also this is a consumer driven market and not a business driven market, so factors like design and ease of use weigh in more heavily to buying decisions than they did in the PC market.
MP3 players will be replaced by mobile phones anyway ;)
I think I'm the last person in my circle of friends that still owns one. And in a few months I'll just use my phone I guess.
That wasn't my point. My point was that folks are marking Apple's fate in mobile as their same fate in the PC market. I'm asking why nobody is referencing their success in the music player market, which they dominated with a similar approach to the one they are taking now with phones.
Well, there are situations in which a mp3 player is more appropriate. The gym, and anywhere that it could get damaged. As such, I use both my iPod nano and touch both on a daily basis.
If the iPhone 4 was made of lab-grown diamond, sure, who'd care, then.
If the iPhone 4 was made of lab-grown diamond, sure, who'd care, then.
Apple will become the Apple of the phone market much as it was the Apple of personal computer market.
I understand the sentiment here, but I don't think it's true. There was a recent quote from El Jobso (can't find off hand, sorry) saying that Apple actually sat on the top end of the market with the Mac (in his absence), got greedy, failed to innovate, and suffered.
Instead, look at what they did with the iPod. They didn't just remain as a high-end mp3 player, they developed products which covered nearly the spectrum of the marketplace, while still remaining the high-end brand.
I think past will be prologue, but it should be the iPod, not the Mac, that will be the best example. That said, when you're taking 50% of the profit in the market with just a 4% share, there's not a lot of reason to be particularly unhappy with your current position!
I understand the sentiment here, but I don't think it's true. There was a recent quote from El Jobso (can't find off hand, sorry) saying that Apple actually sat on the top end of the market with the Mac (in his absence), got greedy, failed to innovate, and suffered.
Instead, look at what they did with the iPod. They didn't just remain as a high-end mp3 player, they developed products which covered nearly the spectrum of the marketplace, while still remaining the high-end brand.
I think past will be prologue, but it should be the iPod, not the Mac, that will be the best example. That said, when you're taking 50% of the profit in the market with just a 4% share, there's not a lot of reason to be particularly unhappy with your current position!
Fair point about their dominance of the mp3 player market, but I think the mobile phone market is a lot closer to PCs. More people have computers or expect to own one than have mp3 players. Pretty much everyone is going to get a mobile phone. Possibly we'll even see android phones start to compete with Apple as mp3 players.
I should perhaps have made it clearer I don't think Apple particularly care about the mass market or consider their position as losing. Why not be happy with what is viewed as a premium product by part of the market, charge extra and make additional revenue as a result?
I should perhaps have made it clearer I don't think Apple particularly care about the mass market or consider their position as losing. Why not be happy with what is viewed as a premium product by part of the market, charge extra and make additional revenue as a result?
What, honestly, is the value of market share in a case like this?
> But Apple don't seem intent on capturing the mass market.
Absolutely - they're clearly more interested in profitability and not having to kow-tow to partners than market share. And who can blame them - would you rather be Porsche or General Motors?
Market share is massively over-rated as a metric - someone in the circulation dept of a major newspaper group once told me that when companies start talking about market share, they're usually trying to hide the real story, such as lack of or decline in customers/revenues/profits. Obviously smartphones are a completely different industry, but there are multiple ways to measure business performance, and the ones which are most loudly trumpeted aren't necessarily the most important ones.
Absolutely - they're clearly more interested in profitability and not having to kow-tow to partners than market share. And who can blame them - would you rather be Porsche or General Motors?
Market share is massively over-rated as a metric - someone in the circulation dept of a major newspaper group once told me that when companies start talking about market share, they're usually trying to hide the real story, such as lack of or decline in customers/revenues/profits. Obviously smartphones are a completely different industry, but there are multiple ways to measure business performance, and the ones which are most loudly trumpeted aren't necessarily the most important ones.
>Market share is massively over-rated as a metric - someone in the circulation dept of a major newspaper group
Market share is much more important for platforms than for newspapers, because a high market share draws in developers, which makes your platform more useful.
Market share is much more important for platforms than for newspapers, because a high market share draws in developers, which makes your platform more useful.
Yeah, but you have to monetize that larger market, and the Android world seems very much oriented around getting free stuff: http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/05/distimo-june-2010/
I think it's calmed down a bit recently, but a few months ago, it seemed that a lot of the ads from UK retailers for Android phones heavily pushed the fact that there "x0,000 FREE applications" available. That's liable to create a culture where end-users begin to expect to get everything for free, which doesn't strike me as an appealing prospect for developers.
Contrast this to the Apple world, where for all the bitching about arbitrary approval rules, the App Store provides a means by which users can easily and happily pay for your product. This ease of monetization is the main reason, I suspect, why newspaper/magazine publishers have rushed headlong to embrace the iPad, as compared to websites, it's a lot more obvious how they might be able to extract value for their efforts.
Just look at how Angry Birds costs a dollar on the App Store, but is (currently) free on Android Marketplace. I don't know if the Android version has ads, or if Rovio plan to charge for it in future, but I'd imagine it's going to be a while before it becomes as lucrative for them as the iOS version.
I think it's calmed down a bit recently, but a few months ago, it seemed that a lot of the ads from UK retailers for Android phones heavily pushed the fact that there "x0,000 FREE applications" available. That's liable to create a culture where end-users begin to expect to get everything for free, which doesn't strike me as an appealing prospect for developers.
Contrast this to the Apple world, where for all the bitching about arbitrary approval rules, the App Store provides a means by which users can easily and happily pay for your product. This ease of monetization is the main reason, I suspect, why newspaper/magazine publishers have rushed headlong to embrace the iPad, as compared to websites, it's a lot more obvious how they might be able to extract value for their efforts.
Just look at how Angry Birds costs a dollar on the App Store, but is (currently) free on Android Marketplace. I don't know if the Android version has ads, or if Rovio plan to charge for it in future, but I'd imagine it's going to be a while before it becomes as lucrative for them as the iOS version.
If you replace "free" with "ad supported" (which is definitely the case for Angry Birds on Android) in your post it gives a very different spin on the situation.
If you're in the UK then you've probably not seen an Apple iAd yet, but the fact they're on their way also radically changes the context for your argument.
If you're in the UK then you've probably not seen an Apple iAd yet, but the fact they're on their way also radically changes the context for your argument.
I'll have to take your word for it re. the Android version of Angry Birds, as it fails to run properly on my Android phone, due to the fragmentation problems that Android advocates say are overblown.
http://www.rovio.com/index.php?mact=Blogs,cntnt01,showentry,...
As for iAds, the you're right, I haven't seen any yet, but is there any data yet to indicate that they're more effective/lucrative/gamechanging than the likes of AdMob?
http://www.rovio.com/index.php?mact=Blogs,cntnt01,showentry,...
As for iAds, the you're right, I haven't seen any yet, but is there any data yet to indicate that they're more effective/lucrative/gamechanging than the likes of AdMob?
As someone who's just moving from an iPhone 3G, I know all about the pain of stuff not working well, or not working at all, on lower end hardware.
If Rovio had said that it didn't work on each of those devices for a different reason then that would be a good example of the android fragmentation bogeyman. Since they're all just lower specced devices, presumably struggling for basically same reason, it's not really a great example.
Regarding iAds, I've seen a few folk claiming they're game changers, but my point was that Apple are jumping heavily into the free/ad supported arena which reduces the impact of any contrast with Android on that point.
If Rovio had said that it didn't work on each of those devices for a different reason then that would be a good example of the android fragmentation bogeyman. Since they're all just lower specced devices, presumably struggling for basically same reason, it's not really a great example.
Regarding iAds, I've seen a few folk claiming they're game changers, but my point was that Apple are jumping heavily into the free/ad supported arena which reduces the impact of any contrast with Android on that point.
If we say Porsche is Apple then Android is probably VW - both producing excellent products that looks pretty similar from a distance but with relatively little overlap in the markets for their core products.
[NB I mean VW branded cars - not the entire range of VW brands, which is huge]
[NB I mean VW branded cars - not the entire range of VW brands, which is huge]
It is funny you should use Porsche and VW as analogs, because Porsche is the majority shareholder in VW.
That was true until this summer, when their leveraged position collapsed and Porsche was bought by VW, actually.
I stand corrected. Interesting recent article about the dynamic (past and future) between the two: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/business/29porsche.html?pa...
I'd actually forgotten about that - but I still think the point about markets, and indeed brands, applies. From the perspective of a consumer the fact the the Porsche holding company owns a sizable chunk of VW probably doesn't register.
In such an analogy, Android would be an engine.
I think that, ultimately, this sort of equilibrium is probably better for the market anyway. Any one platform becoming too dominant may be nice in that you only have one thing to write to, but it's bad for competition and innovation. Also, having multiple platforms will encourage people to do web applications that work on mobile devices, and, hopefully, also encourage the platform guys to make stuff available to web applications.
Apple will become the Apple of the phone market...
Nice phrase. There's something that will help to it and to Android gaining market share: in a few years, smartphones will cost one fifth of its current price. This will have all sorts of implications. Telcos will lose the power subsidizing phones gives them now. Margins for OS will shrink, etc.
Nice phrase. There's something that will help to it and to Android gaining market share: in a few years, smartphones will cost one fifth of its current price. This will have all sorts of implications. Telcos will lose the power subsidizing phones gives them now. Margins for OS will shrink, etc.
I'm not so sure we'll see the price of phones come down as component costs come down. The niche part of the market for mobile phones has always existed... the phones just get better.
You can see this exact trend in microcosm in the iPhone. The price has been pretty much constant but the tech available has rocketed.
You can see this exact trend in microcosm in the iPhone. The price has been pretty much constant but the tech available has rocketed.
>I'm not so sure we'll see the price of phones come down as component costs come down.
You can already get a low-end Android for free on contract:
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/?WT.ac=0941HOM21#LG-Opti...
You can already get a low-end Android for free on contract:
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/?WT.ac=0941HOM21#LG-Opti...
I just picked up a pre-pay (no contract) Orange San Francisco for GBP89 + GBP10 calling credit.
This is starting to be in almost disposable territory for the rich-world's middle class and absolutely affordable on a monthly hire-purchase for subsistence farmers with a cash crop on the side in the poor world.
Broadly-available Internet in your hand to check market spot-prices, research farming or fishing innovations, with a GPS and compass for farmers taking cattle to new markets or bringing fishing boats safely to port could be profound game-changers.
I'm really excited about grass-roots use amongst entrepreneurs in the poor world at this price point. I don't doubt that prices won't dip lower still.
This is starting to be in almost disposable territory for the rich-world's middle class and absolutely affordable on a monthly hire-purchase for subsistence farmers with a cash crop on the side in the poor world.
Broadly-available Internet in your hand to check market spot-prices, research farming or fishing innovations, with a GPS and compass for farmers taking cattle to new markets or bringing fishing boats safely to port could be profound game-changers.
I'm really excited about grass-roots use amongst entrepreneurs in the poor world at this price point. I don't doubt that prices won't dip lower still.
[deleted]
Update: Woz gave Engadget clarification, saying:
"Almost every app I have is better on the iPhone.
[He expects Android] "to be a lot like Windows... it can get greater marketshare and still be crappy."
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/exclusive-woz-misquoted-a...
"Almost every app I have is better on the iPhone.
[He expects Android] "to be a lot like Windows... it can get greater marketshare and still be crappy."
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/exclusive-woz-misquoted-a...
So he clarified by saying.... it'll be the dominant platform. But he likes his iPhone.
I don't really understand what the argument is here. A year ago we could have tried to guess whether Android would have taken off or not, but the fact is that Android-based phones are already massively outselling iPhones and BlackBerrys and nothing Apple or RIM have up their sleeves is likely to change that.
The reason is very simple - Apple offers a one-size-fits-all solution and one size doesn't fit all. I like large-screen phones, but Steve jobs says 3.5 is large enough. Do I force myself to like what Jobs likes, or just go and buy something I like? Examples like this are endless: Don't like iTunes? Don't like the boring icon-grid screen on the iphone? Annoyed by pop-up notifications? Think Swype is better the a conventional keyboard? Well it doesn't matter. It's Apple's way or the highway, and a lot of people are taking the highway.
I don't really understand what the argument is here. A year ago we could have tried to guess whether Android would have taken off or not, but the fact is that Android-based phones are already massively outselling iPhones and BlackBerrys and nothing Apple or RIM have up their sleeves is likely to change that.
The reason is very simple - Apple offers a one-size-fits-all solution and one size doesn't fit all. I like large-screen phones, but Steve jobs says 3.5 is large enough. Do I force myself to like what Jobs likes, or just go and buy something I like? Examples like this are endless: Don't like iTunes? Don't like the boring icon-grid screen on the iphone? Annoyed by pop-up notifications? Think Swype is better the a conventional keyboard? Well it doesn't matter. It's Apple's way or the highway, and a lot of people are taking the highway.
The reason is even simpler than that. In the US, only one carrier has the iPhone. Not everyone is going to want AT&T, or can get AT&T. They have an Android phone because their cell phone vendor says "This is our version of the iPhone". Or, after looking at Nokia's OS, or Verizon's OS, and seeing Android, they're taking the obvious choice.
And just because a phone runs android doesn't mean its in the same class an iPhone. A lot of the $99-$150 Android phones that ran 1.6 (back in the days of the iPhone 3GS being top of the line) definitely did not compare.
And just because a phone runs android doesn't mean its in the same class an iPhone. A lot of the $99-$150 Android phones that ran 1.6 (back in the days of the iPhone 3GS being top of the line) definitely did not compare.
Yes, in the US "apple's way or the highway" includes AT&T, but as I said in reply to this excellent comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1918854), most discussion on HN is ridiculously US-centric. In other countries, selling unlocked contract-less phones is common and Android will still dominate because it can cater to people's needs better.
That was an excellent comment (the one you're linking to, to be clear.)
Mindshare >= Marketshare, tho. Android can cater to specific needs, but where ever Apple goes, the market will follow. (At least, in the US centric world)
Check out http://www.marco.org/980434663 to expand upon my point.
Mindshare >= Marketshare, tho. Android can cater to specific needs, but where ever Apple goes, the market will follow. (At least, in the US centric world)
Check out http://www.marco.org/980434663 to expand upon my point.
I agree, but for entirely different reasons. Android will win for one reason alone: China.
There are 900 million people with cell phones in China. It is currently and will continue to be the biggest cell phone market on the planet. However, the market's fragmented to little bits; shanzai phone here, nokia there, motorola sprinkled in between. But there are two driving forces common to all of the successful phones in China.
1) Price 2) Adaptation to local needs
Shanzai (unbranded local phones) came out and took massive market share by having an almost immediate feedback loop with which to respond to customer demand. Want two sim chips? You got it. Want a phone so loud it turns into a boom box? We can do that. Can you imagine Steve Jobs making these concessions?
MediaTek is cranking out Android capable SoC that bring the price of a smartphone down to $150 - unsubsidized. This is a price level that allows Android to go Shanzai - a very scary proposition for any large handset player. What now separates these 'low end' phones from the high end? They're not perfectly designed by Jonathan Ive, they're not super intuitive, they're not 4g, but they're good enough for China. Remember how Flip came out and just decimated traditional video recorders? It was good enough. MediaTek's $150 android phones are good enough.
If you really want to put the nail in the coffin, realize that if they're good enough for China, they're probably good enough for Africa, for South America, and beyond. The iPhone might retain the high end crown, but Android will undoubtedly become the dominant global smartphone platform.
There are 900 million people with cell phones in China. It is currently and will continue to be the biggest cell phone market on the planet. However, the market's fragmented to little bits; shanzai phone here, nokia there, motorola sprinkled in between. But there are two driving forces common to all of the successful phones in China.
1) Price 2) Adaptation to local needs
Shanzai (unbranded local phones) came out and took massive market share by having an almost immediate feedback loop with which to respond to customer demand. Want two sim chips? You got it. Want a phone so loud it turns into a boom box? We can do that. Can you imagine Steve Jobs making these concessions?
MediaTek is cranking out Android capable SoC that bring the price of a smartphone down to $150 - unsubsidized. This is a price level that allows Android to go Shanzai - a very scary proposition for any large handset player. What now separates these 'low end' phones from the high end? They're not perfectly designed by Jonathan Ive, they're not super intuitive, they're not 4g, but they're good enough for China. Remember how Flip came out and just decimated traditional video recorders? It was good enough. MediaTek's $150 android phones are good enough.
If you really want to put the nail in the coffin, realize that if they're good enough for China, they're probably good enough for Africa, for South America, and beyond. The iPhone might retain the high end crown, but Android will undoubtedly become the dominant global smartphone platform.
Almost all arguments on HN on this topic are ridiculously US-centric. As you can see from other comments, people wonder how the iphone can be "expensive" when it's "$199" vs "$179" for the Samsung Galaxy S.
HTC sent me a free Tattoo last year - 2.8" resistive screen, 340x240 resolution, slow processor etc. Any iPhone user (including myself - I kept on using my 1st gen iphone) would have snubbed this crummy phone, except there's hundreds of millions of people in the rest of the world who'll have phones like this as their first smartphone.
HTC sent me a free Tattoo last year - 2.8" resistive screen, 340x240 resolution, slow processor etc. Any iPhone user (including myself - I kept on using my 1st gen iphone) would have snubbed this crummy phone, except there's hundreds of millions of people in the rest of the world who'll have phones like this as their first smartphone.
I just bought a £100 (not on contract) Android that blows away my iPhone 3G.
I wasn't really expecting it to, I bought it as a stop-gap while I waited for the Nexus S and heard it was a good developer friendly device for the price but it's surpassed my expectations greatly.
Related to the grandparent, this phone (Orange San Francisco) was made by ZTE, the Chinese telecoms giant who I've heard were originally blackballed from the Open Handset Alliance because HTC etc. were worried that they would provide too much price competition.
I wasn't really expecting it to, I bought it as a stop-gap while I waited for the Nexus S and heard it was a good developer friendly device for the price but it's surpassed my expectations greatly.
Related to the grandparent, this phone (Orange San Francisco) was made by ZTE, the Chinese telecoms giant who I've heard were originally blackballed from the Open Handset Alliance because HTC etc. were worried that they would provide too much price competition.
How does Android domination in China lead to domination in American and European markets? For that is what’s needed to “win,” otherwise here there will still be a split market.
Woz is a great engineer but I don't know about his market prediction skills. Anyone remember his last company, Wheels of Zues? I didn't think so. It was some kind of low power wireless, mesh network, GPS something. I am sure it was fun to play with but not really a product.
At this point I think pretty much everyone agrees that Android is well on the way to gaining the lagest market share, at least over the next few years. Windows Phone 7 is the only competition and it's pretty green. iOS and webOS are tied to specific devices so they're different beasts.
Wheels Of Zeus did wireless location tracking of personal possessions. Not a bad idea, but unfortunately way too early.
Anyway, I trust Woz's guess more than any "market prediction expert".
Anyway, I trust Woz's guess more than any "market prediction expert".
I agree as well. While he has had a big impact on technology I don't see the domain expertise to justify his assertions. He is just another person trying to make a guess about something that no one can accurately predict.
I like Alan Kay's quote the best:
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
I think I will get back to that
I think I will get back to that
Maybe he just did it for fun + love rather than profit.
That doesn't make his prediction on the iPhone any less valuable.
You don't have to be a fantastic movie maker to be a good movie critic.
The thing that's going to kill iPhone/iPad at the moment IMHO is lack of flash support more than anything else.
That doesn't make his prediction on the iPhone any less valuable.
You don't have to be a fantastic movie maker to be a good movie critic.
The thing that's going to kill iPhone/iPad at the moment IMHO is lack of flash support more than anything else.
Flash support will "kill" the iPhone why exactly?
I switched from iPhone to android in May. One of the reasons was just that it's open. If I want to do something on it, I probably can. Without voiding the warranty etc.
It's up to me if I want to run flash. Also there's no idiotic tie in to iTunes, it has over the air updates, hotspot tethering and you can even set your ringtone to any mp3. There's a ton of other reasons Android will beat the iPhone IMHO.
I don't think I'd have an iPhone again. It was great when there wasn't any competition, but now it's sorely lacking.
It's up to me if I want to run flash. Also there's no idiotic tie in to iTunes, it has over the air updates, hotspot tethering and you can even set your ringtone to any mp3. There's a ton of other reasons Android will beat the iPhone IMHO.
I don't think I'd have an iPhone again. It was great when there wasn't any competition, but now it's sorely lacking.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone wants the same things in a mobile phone that you do.
I'm not. The fact is, here at any rate (UK), Android is really making massive inroads. The lines are blurring a lot though. Blackberry is suddenly a viable option for teens.
I wouldn't be surprised if Android phones were outselling iPhone by a large margin in the UK.
I wouldn't be surprised if Android phones were outselling iPhone by a large margin in the UK.
Isn't that the basic design philosophy of the iPhone? They seem to have done well.
It's not going to "kill" the iPhone, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has contributed to preventing mass-adoption. A few weeks back I directly measured justin.tv's Flash stats - a staggering 98.9% of our visitors have Flash 10.0 or greater installed. I think that's going to influence what people expect on a really widely adopted mobile web browsing platform.
>It's not going to "kill" the iPhone, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has contributed to preventing mass-adoption
You are too technical to understand that consumers don't really care about flash at all. They don't understand the argument whatsoever. It is two sides of geeks yelling nonsense back and fourth.
Take your argument: Justin.tv. According to Alexa, it's barely in the top 400 highest traffic sites on the net. I doubt anyone in the mainstream has even heard of it. YouTube, on the other hand, is the #3. And there is an app for that. Hulu.com is 196, and Vimeo is 169.
If you have YouTube playback, you have all the video 95% of your customers wants or needs. For the rest, there are apps.
Nobody is buying smartphones on technical features, just like nobody is buying an iPad because of how much RAM it has. People are buying smartphone because of its Use Cases. Because it has free turn-by-turn navigation. Because it can play games online. Because it can SMS. Browse the web. Recognize the song playing overhead at lunch and buy it online. Take pictures (that's really the only flash consumers care about).
You are too technical to understand that consumers don't really care about flash at all. They don't understand the argument whatsoever. It is two sides of geeks yelling nonsense back and fourth.
Take your argument: Justin.tv. According to Alexa, it's barely in the top 400 highest traffic sites on the net. I doubt anyone in the mainstream has even heard of it. YouTube, on the other hand, is the #3. And there is an app for that. Hulu.com is 196, and Vimeo is 169.
If you have YouTube playback, you have all the video 95% of your customers wants or needs. For the rest, there are apps.
Nobody is buying smartphones on technical features, just like nobody is buying an iPad because of how much RAM it has. People are buying smartphone because of its Use Cases. Because it has free turn-by-turn navigation. Because it can play games online. Because it can SMS. Browse the web. Recognize the song playing overhead at lunch and buy it online. Take pictures (that's really the only flash consumers care about).
Not to mention the fact that 'the masses' spend days on end playing farmville, mobster games, etc etc which are all flash. That doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
Farmville and its Mobster equivalent have been on iOS for months.
There has been almost no major technology to emerge since the debut of iOS that is really dependent on Flash. Zynga and Hulu were the last major players to emerge with prominent Flash utilization, and they've heavily invested in iOS since. To the contrary, iOS exclusive (at least to begin) apps like Angry Birds and Instagram have captivated the tech press and public imagination.
Really, as an iOS user since the first gen, I don't feel left out of anything. To the contrary, iOS continues to get the best stuff first - Kindle, Netflix, the latest iD and Epic games, the best social networking clients, the best new games that people on other platforms clamor for (Angry Birds, Cut The Rope, etc.).
There has been almost no major technology to emerge since the debut of iOS that is really dependent on Flash. Zynga and Hulu were the last major players to emerge with prominent Flash utilization, and they've heavily invested in iOS since. To the contrary, iOS exclusive (at least to begin) apps like Angry Birds and Instagram have captivated the tech press and public imagination.
Really, as an iOS user since the first gen, I don't feel left out of anything. To the contrary, iOS continues to get the best stuff first - Kindle, Netflix, the latest iD and Epic games, the best social networking clients, the best new games that people on other platforms clamor for (Angry Birds, Cut The Rope, etc.).
farmville, mobster games, etc etc which are all flash.
Both Farmville (60+ million users) and Mafia Wars (45+ million users) have been ported to iOS.
Both Farmville (60+ million users) and Mafia Wars (45+ million users) have been ported to iOS.
Ported as in "You go to facebook and it just works"?
Or ported as in "You have to do X,Y,Z"?
If it's the later, I don't think it particularly matters. Most people just want it to work. They consider a browser should function as a browser.
Or ported as in "You have to do X,Y,Z"?
If it's the later, I don't think it particularly matters. Most people just want it to work. They consider a browser should function as a browser.
As in 'a native app.'
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/farmville-by-zynga/id37556266...
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/farmville-by-zynga/id37556266...
Too bad it's impossible to port something. Absolutely, completely impossible. In fact, once something is coded onto a platform, the cosmic censor prevents one from even using that brand in a different way on a different platform. See: Diablo, and it's PlayStation port: Devil Guy Visits Ratchet and Clank.
Flash is actually coded by chipping if-thens and loops into stone tablets for all of time.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/farmville-by-zynga/id37556266...
Flash is actually coded by chipping if-thens and loops into stone tablets for all of time.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/farmville-by-zynga/id37556266...
Android won't become the dominant platform if for no other reasons than:
(a) The carriers won't let any platform become dominant, as the owner of that platform would then be able to dictate terms. The original Apple/AT&T iPhone deal was probably a one-off that only happened because (i) Apple had a markedly superior product to anyone else at the time, and (ii) AT&T wanted to increase their market share. [Happy to be corrected on that latter point - I'm not in the USA, and I'm only going off what I've read online.] The failure for Apple & Verizon to come to any sort of similar agreement is more likely to be down to Verizon not wanting to give ground, than technical issues like CDMA. The carriers actively encourage alternative platforms as a means of playing divide-and-conquer against the manufacturers - look at how AT&T is the US launch partner for Windows Mobile 7 rather than one of the other carriers; AT&T clearly don't want to be (or be seen as) locked hand-in-hand with the iPhone.
(b) Google won't want Android to be dominant either, as this would bring political threats in terms of antitrust and the risk of being broken up. It's far better for Android to "just" be market-leading or profitable, as this wouldn't attract such negative attention. And of course, if Google services also appear on other platforms such as iOS, then they're not completely losing out.
Have a look at this Asymco post for some more points against a dominant platform: http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/19/talk-of-mobile-dominance-is...
(a) The carriers won't let any platform become dominant, as the owner of that platform would then be able to dictate terms. The original Apple/AT&T iPhone deal was probably a one-off that only happened because (i) Apple had a markedly superior product to anyone else at the time, and (ii) AT&T wanted to increase their market share. [Happy to be corrected on that latter point - I'm not in the USA, and I'm only going off what I've read online.] The failure for Apple & Verizon to come to any sort of similar agreement is more likely to be down to Verizon not wanting to give ground, than technical issues like CDMA. The carriers actively encourage alternative platforms as a means of playing divide-and-conquer against the manufacturers - look at how AT&T is the US launch partner for Windows Mobile 7 rather than one of the other carriers; AT&T clearly don't want to be (or be seen as) locked hand-in-hand with the iPhone.
(b) Google won't want Android to be dominant either, as this would bring political threats in terms of antitrust and the risk of being broken up. It's far better for Android to "just" be market-leading or profitable, as this wouldn't attract such negative attention. And of course, if Google services also appear on other platforms such as iOS, then they're not completely losing out.
Have a look at this Asymco post for some more points against a dominant platform: http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/19/talk-of-mobile-dominance-is...
re (b)
I don't know that Google can control that well enough. I'd think it more likely they'd control the appearance of being #1 than they'd actually be able to stop it happening.
I don't agree with him. I think things will remain highly segmented for many years to come. Mobile devices are far more personal than desktops and there's less chance of a one-size-fits-all solution. I don't see any killer app that is going to make one platform vastly superior to another. It's not like the old days of PCs where you needed a DOS/Windows PC to run your applications and there wasn't much choice to the end user or enterprise user. These days many enterprises are giving their employees a choice of different SmartPhone platforms exactly because there is no one-size-fits all. In the consumer space it's even more of a wild card but the same theory applies. There's simply not enough lock-in to allow one company to become dominant. You can easily jump from an iPhone, to Android, to WM7, and back to iPhone without losing any major functionality.
I would agree that Android based platforms will likely be the single biggest player but that's not exactly the same as being a dominant, homogeneous, platform in the style of Windows. We could see the Android handset market evolve (or devolve) into a Symbian-like future where the operating systems share some common DNA but are effectively different platforms. For example Sony's possible PSP phone with games incompatible with other Android phones. You can technically still call it Android but in reality it will be "baed on Android" This is something that was never really possible with Windows. I don't know if we'll be able to group all these Android based platforms together in any meaningful way in the future. The differences between Android Device A and Android Device B might be as meaningful as the difference between iOS and Android.
I would agree that Android based platforms will likely be the single biggest player but that's not exactly the same as being a dominant, homogeneous, platform in the style of Windows. We could see the Android handset market evolve (or devolve) into a Symbian-like future where the operating systems share some common DNA but are effectively different platforms. For example Sony's possible PSP phone with games incompatible with other Android phones. You can technically still call it Android but in reality it will be "baed on Android" This is something that was never really possible with Windows. I don't know if we'll be able to group all these Android based platforms together in any meaningful way in the future. The differences between Android Device A and Android Device B might be as meaningful as the difference between iOS and Android.
> Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.
Oh, I'm not so sure about that. The biggest problem Android app developers have now is the wicked fragmentation on the platform, and that's only going to go UP as more handhelds come out.
When you target iOS, you know the capabilities of pretty much every generation are pretty similar going in, and that's all you have to worry about. With Android, you have to ask - Does this model even HAVE a keyboard?
EDIT: Okay, because I'm being modded down into hell, then why doesn't Android have Netflix? Oh that's right, device fragmentation:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/netflix-on-your-android-dev...
Netflix is on your computer, your Xbox 360, your Wii, your PS3, and on your iPhone, but NOT on Android and the Netflix devs themselves say "fragmentation" is the issue.
Sure, the keyboard was a silly example, but it's not like it's not a problem.
Oh, I'm not so sure about that. The biggest problem Android app developers have now is the wicked fragmentation on the platform, and that's only going to go UP as more handhelds come out.
When you target iOS, you know the capabilities of pretty much every generation are pretty similar going in, and that's all you have to worry about. With Android, you have to ask - Does this model even HAVE a keyboard?
EDIT: Okay, because I'm being modded down into hell, then why doesn't Android have Netflix? Oh that's right, device fragmentation:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/netflix-on-your-android-dev...
Netflix is on your computer, your Xbox 360, your Wii, your PS3, and on your iPhone, but NOT on Android and the Netflix devs themselves say "fragmentation" is the issue.
Sure, the keyboard was a silly example, but it's not like it's not a problem.
Too many people gets the causality wrong in the Netflix story.
The story isn't that Netflix isn't on Android because of fragmentation. The story us that Netflix will cause fragmentation on Android phones.
XBox 360, Wii, PS3 and iPhone all have strong DRM build into the platform.
Android doesn't have strong DRM in the base version, so Netflix will (or can) not support that version.
However, individual Android phones may have Netflix because Android is Open Source, so individual manufacturers may add strong DRM to the platform.
Hence, the user experience will likely become (further) fragmented because of Netflix.
The story isn't that Netflix isn't on Android because of fragmentation. The story us that Netflix will cause fragmentation on Android phones.
XBox 360, Wii, PS3 and iPhone all have strong DRM build into the platform.
Android doesn't have strong DRM in the base version, so Netflix will (or can) not support that version.
However, individual Android phones may have Netflix because Android is Open Source, so individual manufacturers may add strong DRM to the platform.
Hence, the user experience will likely become (further) fragmented because of Netflix.
Except the iPhone effectively has no DRM. Load the application into gdb, dump memory, and you've broken it. This is even worse than Android, even: the developers cannot add their own DRM on top, due to both technical and App Store restrictions.
This is simply not true. Certain App Store developers have added web service calls to their applications so they "phone home" and pirated apps could be denied access. Similar to an API key.
There is only one foolproof check to see if your application is pirated, since only the binary itself has to change (and you can't checksum what's distributed to users). Therefore, there's just one simple thing to patch out -- 5 minutes for an experienced pirate.
> Netflix is on your computer
No it's not. Netflix doesn't support my computer, so I can't get it. I wish I could...in fact, I'd probably pay 10x the price they're charging for the service they offer. But since they don't support Ubuntu because of DRM issues, there is no Netflix on my computer.
Your Netflix example isn't appropriate here.
No it's not. Netflix doesn't support my computer, so I can't get it. I wish I could...in fact, I'd probably pay 10x the price they're charging for the service they offer. But since they don't support Ubuntu because of DRM issues, there is no Netflix on my computer.
Your Netflix example isn't appropriate here.
10x the price huh? Buy a copy of Windows install in virtual box and you now have Netflix. See how easy that was?
The point is that NF can be made to easily run on any computer and that you are choosing not to run it. That's a different situation than what is happening with Android.
The point is that NF can be made to easily run on any computer and that you are choosing not to run it. That's a different situation than what is happening with Android.
I am willing to pay a lot to Netflix because I support the idea of what they're doing: bringing streaming video to the PC and away from the TV, and accelerating the general public's desire for better Internet service.
I do not support Microsoft! I am not willing to give any money at all to Microsoft. I disagree with their business practices, think they produce poor-quality software and refuse to use Windows.
I'm not doing this out of being a "fanboy" or anything; I just don't trust them. They have a 15-year history of producing software full of security holes and my government will throw me in jail if I look for those holes. I've heard Windows 7 is a bit better, but how can I know? It's a crime to find out.
Sorry. Not going to run Windows.
I do not support Microsoft! I am not willing to give any money at all to Microsoft. I disagree with their business practices, think they produce poor-quality software and refuse to use Windows.
I'm not doing this out of being a "fanboy" or anything; I just don't trust them. They have a 15-year history of producing software full of security holes and my government will throw me in jail if I look for those holes. I've heard Windows 7 is a bit better, but how can I know? It's a crime to find out.
Sorry. Not going to run Windows.
>"Sorry. Not going to run Windows."
Then it is not a matter of Netflix "not supporting your computer."
It is a matter of your personal values and choices precluding use of Netflix.
Then it is not a matter of Netflix "not supporting your computer."
It is a matter of your personal values and choices precluding use of Netflix.
So don't run Windows. Hackintosh. Or is specifically you hating Silverlight? And would it be possible to Mono or Wine Silverlight and avoid windows?
For 10x the price, he could buy a Mac and run Ubuntu in a VM/Bootcamp option. He would have Netflix on a Unix Box.
(Of course 10x Free is still free, since Ubuntu is free. I'm talking about 10x the hardware price of his rig.)
(Of course 10x Free is still free, since Ubuntu is free. I'm talking about 10x the hardware price of his rig.)
> 10x the price huh? Buy a copy of Windows
Congratulations. You have unraveled the mystery of why it would cost 10x as much.
Congratulations. You have unraveled the mystery of why it would cost 10x as much.
Do you have practical experience with that, or are you just repeating what you read on the internet?
What? Just last week there was a flurry of stories where Android app developers were complaining about device fragmentation. Studies done that show the breakdown of devices, features, screen sizes, etc.
You know, occasionally you can trust what you read on the internet.
You know, occasionally you can trust what you read on the internet.
As if the iPhone/iOS-Platform had no fragmentation:
1. different OS versions (The classic won't get 4.x and some users never upgrade) 2. different features on the same version (3G with 4.x has no multitasking) 3. different screen sizes (480x320, 1024x768, 960x640)
1. different OS versions (The classic won't get 4.x and some users never upgrade) 2. different features on the same version (3G with 4.x has no multitasking) 3. different screen sizes (480x320, 1024x768, 960x640)
Any sane developer would pick iPhone fragmentation over Android fragmentation. I should know, I develop on a platform that's even more fragmented than Android.
Google and Android fans refuse to acknowledge the impact of fragmentation as much as they can, but it's there and it's going to get worse. Look at what the Android developers are saying tough (even here on HN): it's more time consuming and it costs more to develop for Android than for the iPhone.
Google and Android fans refuse to acknowledge the impact of fragmentation as much as they can, but it's there and it's going to get worse. Look at what the Android developers are saying tough (even here on HN): it's more time consuming and it costs more to develop for Android than for the iPhone.
To be fair, the 480 vs 960 one isn't nearly as bad as the andriod stuff. It's just pixel doubling. With andriod... I mean, look at the driod. 54 extra lines! what are you going to do there?
In other words, iOS fragmentation is not nearly as bad as Andriods, and furthermore, cannot get as bad as andriod gets, simply because there's only one manufacturer.
In other words, iOS fragmentation is not nearly as bad as Andriods, and furthermore, cannot get as bad as andriod gets, simply because there's only one manufacturer.
One does not need experience, only logic. It is logical that the more producers and devices there are, the more difficult and time consuming it is to develop for a software platform. Tricks such as auto-resizing widgets only get you so far.
Please read the testimonials from HN Android developers and you'll be convinced too.
Please read the testimonials from HN Android developers and you'll be convinced too.
Netflix has nothing to do with product fragmentation. It is just entirely about Netflix refusing to get in the business of creating DRM systems. Android does not have a systemwide DRM scheme. This may be a failing of Android, but it is not fragmentation.
otoh, iOS still doesn't have a decent notification system or multitasking. major capabilities like that might be more important than fragmentation, which effects both platforms and is only a problem for smaller devs. i have done some android work and "wicked" is an exaggeration. i am not aware of anyone who cares if there is a keyboard or not. it's completely abstracted by the OS.
We've seen products lacking certain "major" features win from more technically advanced competitors before. Because regular consumers don't care about the same things that geeks do. Look at the iPod. Not to mention other reasons that give an edge to a product (e.g. the porn industry backing a certain media format that consequently beats its competition).
In my opinion the most important feature is freedom, contrary to the locked platform you get with iOS. Android isn't perfect in that regard, but at least a step in the right direction. Sadly, most people don't care enough about freedom to let it determine their purchasing decisions (although they do like to complain after the fact when they can't port their data to another device).
>Sadly, most people don't care enough about freedom
What most people don't care about is thoughtless spin like this. It's not "free" vs. "draconian lock down", it's a trade off. Android lets you do anything you want, in which case people... do anything they want. Apple puts controls in place on what can be done. That means you can get more things quicker on the Anroid but it also means you can apps that steal your credit card info, etc.
It's a trade off and both sides have advantages and disadvantages. Stop with this disingenuous "it's about freedom!" nonsense.
What most people don't care about is thoughtless spin like this. It's not "free" vs. "draconian lock down", it's a trade off. Android lets you do anything you want, in which case people... do anything they want. Apple puts controls in place on what can be done. That means you can get more things quicker on the Anroid but it also means you can apps that steal your credit card info, etc.
It's a trade off and both sides have advantages and disadvantages. Stop with this disingenuous "it's about freedom!" nonsense.
Sure, it is a trade off and you misunderstand me if you think I'm attacking Apple because of some "be free or die" mentality. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm typing this on a Mac and actually own an iPhone, even if I use a HTC Desire instead. But that doesn't make caring about freedom "thoughtless spin". Using words like that doesn't do justice to a legitimate concern. Getting locked into a platform is a serious pain. I also don't agree with the idea that you can do pretty much whatever you want on Android as it comes pre-installed on your phone, which is how most regular people use their phones (just like the fact that they don't jailbreak their iPhones). That argument seems like the same black and white "free" vs. "draconian lock down" comparison that you disagree with.
Apple knows that mainstream consumers don't care about freedom, just like most citizens don't really care about limitations to their civil rights until it gets to the point where they are groped by the TSA on the airport (i.e. the "if you've got nothing to hide..." mentality). Living in a country like Singapore definitely has its benefits, just as closed computer platforms do. If you're not a power user your data usually doesn't matter that much, anyway, so losing it if you switch to another system doesn't seem like such a big deal when you're deciding about what product to buy. This is exactly the reason why people buy a new version of Microsoft Office every two years. To me, however, my data matters and I get frustrated when I can't synch my iPhone from my GNU/Linux box without jumping through all sorts of hoops. I might not be the typical user, but I still want free platforms to disrupt closed ones (note that disrupt doesn't mean that I don't want them to coexist; choice is good). Just like I want (old versions of) Internet Explorer to die in favor of more open alternatives.
Just to clarify: this is not a black and white position and I don't have anything against Apple, or even Microsoft (in fact, I think Microsoft is more open than Apple these days). My main point was that having more features doesn't make or break a product, but that being said the side-note about freedom was a serious concern that I deeply care about when it comes to investing time and data into a platform.
Apple knows that mainstream consumers don't care about freedom, just like most citizens don't really care about limitations to their civil rights until it gets to the point where they are groped by the TSA on the airport (i.e. the "if you've got nothing to hide..." mentality). Living in a country like Singapore definitely has its benefits, just as closed computer platforms do. If you're not a power user your data usually doesn't matter that much, anyway, so losing it if you switch to another system doesn't seem like such a big deal when you're deciding about what product to buy. This is exactly the reason why people buy a new version of Microsoft Office every two years. To me, however, my data matters and I get frustrated when I can't synch my iPhone from my GNU/Linux box without jumping through all sorts of hoops. I might not be the typical user, but I still want free platforms to disrupt closed ones (note that disrupt doesn't mean that I don't want them to coexist; choice is good). Just like I want (old versions of) Internet Explorer to die in favor of more open alternatives.
Just to clarify: this is not a black and white position and I don't have anything against Apple, or even Microsoft (in fact, I think Microsoft is more open than Apple these days). My main point was that having more features doesn't make or break a product, but that being said the side-note about freedom was a serious concern that I deeply care about when it comes to investing time and data into a platform.
What I have an issue with is this assumption that Apple is trying to do evil platform lock in. A lot of what they're doing makes their devices much more convenient to use than they could be otherwise. Perhaps that's a happy coincidence, perhaps it isn't. How would you tell if they were doing it to be "evil" or not? It would look about the same.
Of course you could say that they could just make a way for power users to get by all this stuff and that's true, but based on Jobs behavior in the past he seems to be terrified of someone having his stuff crash and blame it on Apple even if it was totally the users fault [1]. They nearly died to Microsoft because of this very thing and history may repeat against Anroid.
[1] You might say that's really silly, but most of Windows reputation for being unstable came from 3rd party software.
Of course you could say that they could just make a way for power users to get by all this stuff and that's true, but based on Jobs behavior in the past he seems to be terrified of someone having his stuff crash and blame it on Apple even if it was totally the users fault [1]. They nearly died to Microsoft because of this very thing and history may repeat against Anroid.
[1] You might say that's really silly, but most of Windows reputation for being unstable came from 3rd party software.
It's disingenuous until the day Apple decides your phone has reached EOL without your consent, ro the da, you know, you want to use anything that's not iTunes to sync data.
I already use something that isn't iTunes to sync data. I'm using MobileMe but you can also use other cloud services for this.
Yeah, I'd really enjoy some better multitasking/background stuff on the iPhone, I'm sure. Then again, I'm certain that there would be apps that would abuse it and drain the heck outta my battery.
Man, it would be nice if there was a system utility that showed how much of the battery each app drained, so you could keep track of the worst offenders. Even if just a good estimate, like % of processor time * amount drained while active.
Man, it would be nice if there was a system utility that showed how much of the battery each app drained, so you could keep track of the worst offenders. Even if just a good estimate, like % of processor time * amount drained while active.
Android has that.
Yeah it does, but it's not as useful as you'd think. On my phone, the breakdown is always like 40% Display, 30% Idle, 20% for various system things, and the last 10% is stuff I can actually control. My display is set to auto brightness, but it has a short shutoff timer and I shut it off manually most of the time when I stop looking at it. I've tried low brightness settings but that didn't make much difference. Wireless, Bluetooth, and GPS don't make much difference either but I always keep them off.
The one thing that seems to make a huge difference is having the cell signal on when there is no tower in range. The phone gets hot and burns battery juice when it's trying to find a tower. My office has lousy reception, so on days when the signal is bad my battery is nearly dead by the time I'm ready to go home.
It used to be completely dead almost every day unless I recharged during the day, but I bought an extended battery. They should just come with the bigger batteries, even if the phones cost a bit more. It only sticks out a bit, and makes the battery life much more livable.
The one thing that seems to make a huge difference is having the cell signal on when there is no tower in range. The phone gets hot and burns battery juice when it's trying to find a tower. My office has lousy reception, so on days when the signal is bad my battery is nearly dead by the time I'm ready to go home.
It used to be completely dead almost every day unless I recharged during the day, but I bought an extended battery. They should just come with the bigger batteries, even if the phones cost a bit more. It only sticks out a bit, and makes the battery life much more livable.
Joe Public doesn't care about that. Not really.
No. But developers do. That way they can make sure their app is not a battery drain without having to wait for hours. And once this is a priority to developers, Joe Public benefits.
iOS developers have more powerful tools than a task tracker app available to them in the SDK.
No, but Joe Public's technical friend can use it to show him what's eating his battery. Just because a non-technical person doesn't use a feature doesn't mean it's useless.
If you read the actual Netflix blog post, you'll see that they describe fragmentation as the result of the lack of a DRM scheme in Android OS (aka nothing to to do with hardware), not a cause of why they can't put Netflix on Android.
I don't think fragmentation is the issue with Netflix.
The main issue is that Android (or any Linux) is open, so if DRM crackers could modify Windows without looking at the source, imagine how easy will it be having all the source of all the DRM lib surroundings(you could fake the DRM lib with millions of combinations).
This means anybody being able to crack Netflix without effort in seconds and Netflix loosing millions of dollars. Not going to happen.
The main issue is that Android (or any Linux) is open, so if DRM crackers could modify Windows without looking at the source, imagine how easy will it be having all the source of all the DRM lib surroundings(you could fake the DRM lib with millions of combinations).
This means anybody being able to crack Netflix without effort in seconds and Netflix loosing millions of dollars. Not going to happen.
Sure, and I'm sure that it can do that with the iPhone keep increasing their sales as well. There is a huge market of dumb-phones that Android will slowly erode and make its.
In 2006 MySpace was the dominate social networking site...
Your point? MySpace was free, and the cost of switching to another social network was fairly low.
Most phones in the US have 1 or 2 year contracts with ETFs. Outside the US, the unsubsidized phone price is quite expensive, rougly to $500-$600 USD.
What I'm saying is your comparison doesn't really apply. It's actually even worse than the "Apple vs. Microsoft 2.0" or "Open vs. Closed" debates.
Most phones in the US have 1 or 2 year contracts with ETFs. Outside the US, the unsubsidized phone price is quite expensive, rougly to $500-$600 USD.
What I'm saying is your comparison doesn't really apply. It's actually even worse than the "Apple vs. Microsoft 2.0" or "Open vs. Closed" debates.
The argument was not that X phone on carrier Y will be dominant but that the Android OS in general would be.
Two years is a pretty short time frame in the grand scheme of things, MySpace was dominant in 2006 but it wasn't an overnight switch to Facebook. My whole point is that things continue to change, there is no winner if the race never ends.
Two years is a pretty short time frame in the grand scheme of things, MySpace was dominant in 2006 but it wasn't an overnight switch to Facebook. My whole point is that things continue to change, there is no winner if the race never ends.
Is there an actual quote from him saying it will be the dominant platform? The article seems to be lacking that. In fact, there aren't really any quotes in here that even hint at him damning or praising one platform over the other. It'd be interesting to know what he actually said.
Why is this considered an amazing insight? If you could get an iphone on more than one carrier there might actually be something to discuss here. Android is due to win simply because there are more people who can get it at any one time.
> Android is due to win simply because there are more people who can get it at any one time.
This is true due to cost, not carriers. The iPhone is available on most (all?) carriers in Canada. In fact, the USA is, I think, the only place in the world that has the carrier problem with iPhone. And since the USA is only ~5% of the world's population, that particular problem isn't very significant in the grand scheme of things.
More people are able to get Android phones than iPhones because there are price variations in the Android ones that allow people with little money to buy an Android phone.
This is true due to cost, not carriers. The iPhone is available on most (all?) carriers in Canada. In fact, the USA is, I think, the only place in the world that has the carrier problem with iPhone. And since the USA is only ~5% of the world's population, that particular problem isn't very significant in the grand scheme of things.
More people are able to get Android phones than iPhones because there are price variations in the Android ones that allow people with little money to buy an Android phone.
Here's the discount argument.
Just to be clear, so people can sign up for $3000+ contracts, but they just can't afford that $159 for the iPhone 4? (on contract at Rogers. Or they can get the 3GS for $99)
That ridiculous argument doesn't pass the most superficial of consideration.
Further, the Galaxy S costs $179 on contract. I guess it's for the really rich. Even the miserable Dell streak is $149. The Blackberry Torch pushes in at $229.
If cost were a serious factor, Apple would have long had a iPhone 4LE or something of that sort. Right now they know it doesn't make a difference.
Just to be clear, so people can sign up for $3000+ contracts, but they just can't afford that $159 for the iPhone 4? (on contract at Rogers. Or they can get the 3GS for $99)
That ridiculous argument doesn't pass the most superficial of consideration.
Further, the Galaxy S costs $179 on contract. I guess it's for the really rich. Even the miserable Dell streak is $149. The Blackberry Torch pushes in at $229.
If cost were a serious factor, Apple would have long had a iPhone 4LE or something of that sort. Right now they know it doesn't make a difference.
Coming soon to Canada: an Android phone for $50.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/lg-gw620-eve-coming-to-ro...
Even if there aren't many cheap Android phones out there right now, the potential is there and will be exploited. There'll probably never be a cheap iPhone, however.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/lg-gw620-eve-coming-to-ro...
Even if there aren't many cheap Android phones out there right now, the potential is there and will be exploited. There'll probably never be a cheap iPhone, however.
Still, though, it's $50 on a 3-year contract, over which time thousands of dollars will be paid in tithe to the mobile company.
In smartphone pricing anything below $200 (in a contract) is a wash, because very few people actually buy their phone outside of a term. And yes, that includes internationally.
There'll probably never be a cheap iPhone, however
There's this myth that Apple just never lowers themselves to becoming the discount option.
Except with the iMac, which became popular because it was a cheap, all-in-one computer.
Except with the iPod and iPod Touch, which have always led the entire category in value.
Except for the iPad, which still can't be matched by competitors.
Except with Apple TV.
Except with the iPhone, compared to the Blackberry competition at the time.
Apple plays a great value game. That they are considered some sort of BMW of electronics is laughable. They are the Toyota of electronics: Great products, but if you really think they're exclusive...
In smartphone pricing anything below $200 (in a contract) is a wash, because very few people actually buy their phone outside of a term. And yes, that includes internationally.
There'll probably never be a cheap iPhone, however
There's this myth that Apple just never lowers themselves to becoming the discount option.
Except with the iMac, which became popular because it was a cheap, all-in-one computer.
Except with the iPod and iPod Touch, which have always led the entire category in value.
Except for the iPad, which still can't be matched by competitors.
Except with Apple TV.
Except with the iPhone, compared to the Blackberry competition at the time.
Apple plays a great value game. That they are considered some sort of BMW of electronics is laughable. They are the Toyota of electronics: Great products, but if you really think they're exclusive...
> Apple plays a great value game. That they are considered some sort of BMW of electronics is laughable. They are the Toyota of electronics: Great products, but if you really think they're exclusive...
In some markets such as the UK, BMW models such as the 3-series outsell all the comparable vehicles from 'mainstream' manufacturers (e.g. Ford Mondeo, Vauxhall/Opel [GM] Insignia, Toyota Avensis, Honda Accord), so comparing Apple and BMW as examples of false exclusivity isn't necessarily that far off the mark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeLarge/Top_10_best_sellin...
In some markets such as the UK, BMW models such as the 3-series outsell all the comparable vehicles from 'mainstream' manufacturers (e.g. Ford Mondeo, Vauxhall/Opel [GM] Insignia, Toyota Avensis, Honda Accord), so comparing Apple and BMW as examples of false exclusivity isn't necessarily that far off the mark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeLarge/Top_10_best_sellin...
It's considered an insight because a year ago HN was raging with debates over whether Android might be a viable competitor to iOS, or whether it would be stillborn. Now, "everyone knows" Android's going to win.
"Why is this considered an amazing insight? If you could get an iphone on more than one carrier there might actually be something to discuss here."
A year ago I decided to embrace Android (as a user and as a developer), a principal reason being that it was obvious that the inertia that was going to grow behind it would be huge: The iPhone was so enormously successfully against a litany of foes, that it was obvious that those foes would have to converge on some sort of counter-attack, and Android was there at the right time and place, with the right openness, ability for customization and differentiation, and technology stack.
So I paid attention to the arguments that took place. To say they were completely the opposite of what you and others are now saying is not exaggerating.
Android was doomed, we were told, for any of countless reasons. The iPhone was secure in its pending world domination.
Now of course the argument has changed, over the past quarter absolutely doing a 180. Now it's just all so obvious, right, with so many makers and so many models and so many options against just one itsy bitsy little phone (you know....like Symbian and J2ME, or even the Blackberry, but...well...ignore those because they don't fit the narrative).
The new argument you're supposed to embrace is the "iPhone is for the elite, while Android is for the poor, what with their two for one discounts and low-end phones", while filling out and eagerly consuming self-selecting surveys that comfort that ridiculous notion.
A year ago I decided to embrace Android (as a user and as a developer), a principal reason being that it was obvious that the inertia that was going to grow behind it would be huge: The iPhone was so enormously successfully against a litany of foes, that it was obvious that those foes would have to converge on some sort of counter-attack, and Android was there at the right time and place, with the right openness, ability for customization and differentiation, and technology stack.
So I paid attention to the arguments that took place. To say they were completely the opposite of what you and others are now saying is not exaggerating.
Android was doomed, we were told, for any of countless reasons. The iPhone was secure in its pending world domination.
Now of course the argument has changed, over the past quarter absolutely doing a 180. Now it's just all so obvious, right, with so many makers and so many models and so many options against just one itsy bitsy little phone (you know....like Symbian and J2ME, or even the Blackberry, but...well...ignore those because they don't fit the narrative).
The new argument you're supposed to embrace is the "iPhone is for the elite, while Android is for the poor, what with their two for one discounts and low-end phones", while filling out and eagerly consuming self-selecting surveys that comfort that ridiculous notion.
I'm think maybe some Apple fans expect iPhone to be the thing which makes the rest of the world wake up and switch to Apple products. It's not. It was innovative and it meant a number of people who would never have bought a smart phone before did so. But Apple don't seem intent on capturing the mass market.