Google: Expect 18 Android Phones By Year’s End(bits.blogs.nytimes.com)
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
Google: Expect 18 Android Phones By Year’s End
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/google-expect-18-android-phones-by-years-end/
4 comments
It is interesting to think about dynamics of the mobile space: two years ago iPhone was not yet released, iPhone SDK is just over a year old and to work with it you have to learn the "exotic" Obj-C…
They don't even have to do that. Considering you can only get the iPhone from AT&T, that leaves plenty of other carriers for the android powered ones
Anyone know if you can convert your device from one of the three types to another?
In principle you can build your own android image from the public git tree. This would be the first type. My understanding is that people have figured out how to hack the google apps (gmail, market, etc) onto these pure open-source images, so switching between the types is technically possible, but probably infringes copyright and/or violates eulas.
If you can install any app on the free version, though, why not just install GMail etc? Perhaps not an officially sanctioned app, but I'm sure you could find/make one that would get the job done.
I guess I don't really get where the tension is in the three options. Usually, e.g., you get more options but have to pay more. He seems to hint that handset makers and carriers trade autonomy for more polished software, but doesn't really make it clear.
I guess I don't really get where the tension is in the three options. Usually, e.g., you get more options but have to pay more. He seems to hint that handset makers and carriers trade autonomy for more polished software, but doesn't really make it clear.
The tiers are aimed at the carriers, not at end users. The logic being that the (typical) end user is not going to be changing to a non-carrier-sanctioned version of the OS.
I don't fully understand the difference between tiers 2 and 3, but it looks like the big picture is basically you don't get to put the Google signature apps on your phone unless you enter some kind of agreement with them.
I don't fully understand the difference between tiers 2 and 3, but it looks like the big picture is basically you don't get to put the Google signature apps on your phone unless you enter some kind of agreement with them.
And Android becomes windows... having to support a gazillion different hardware configurations and not working properly in any of them.
Android is a pretty cool system, bu trying to please everyone will be it's demise.
Android is a pretty cool system, bu trying to please everyone will be it's demise.
If by Windows you mean the platform that is still so dominant that many regard it as a monopoly then you just could be right. I'd say it could be like the 80s all over again were Android does indeed represent Microsoft / IBM compats and the iPhone is the Mac.
I was convinced of this too, i.e. that Apple again is trying to control the user experience to their own detriment just as they did in the PC wars where they also had a major first-mover's advantage. I saw Android as the "IBM-compatible" OS for phones.
But then I had a very interesting conversation wherein I was reminded of one important reason that a flexible OS like Windows (i.e. an OS that was built to run on many varied hardware configurations) ended up winning. And that was the speed of hardware innovation. When hardware upgrades are popular, it pays to give people an OS that will run on almost anything. When differences in processor speed and RAM actually mattered, Windows gave people the ability to choose. Apple's Mac hardware often wasn't the fastest or newest thing, and that brought them down.
Contrast that with today, where I would argue that hardware innovation in the mobile phone market is almost irrelevant. The iPhone hardware is just as good as any other 3G phone, and in fact millions of people (apparently) prefer it. But more important is that people feel their phones are good enough, and they don't feel the need to upgrade components of their hardware.
I'm not saying I think Apple will win this time. In fact I hope they don't since they treat developers pretty poorly. I'm just saying the analogy to the PC wars breaks down in a pretty big way.
But then I had a very interesting conversation wherein I was reminded of one important reason that a flexible OS like Windows (i.e. an OS that was built to run on many varied hardware configurations) ended up winning. And that was the speed of hardware innovation. When hardware upgrades are popular, it pays to give people an OS that will run on almost anything. When differences in processor speed and RAM actually mattered, Windows gave people the ability to choose. Apple's Mac hardware often wasn't the fastest or newest thing, and that brought them down.
Contrast that with today, where I would argue that hardware innovation in the mobile phone market is almost irrelevant. The iPhone hardware is just as good as any other 3G phone, and in fact millions of people (apparently) prefer it. But more important is that people feel their phones are good enough, and they don't feel the need to upgrade components of their hardware.
I'm not saying I think Apple will win this time. In fact I hope they don't since they treat developers pretty poorly. I'm just saying the analogy to the PC wars breaks down in a pretty big way.
I think you are falling into the 'nobody will ever need more than 640K' fallacy. New applications will come along that demand hardware improvements. In fact I'd say hardware feature innovation is partly responsible for the iPhone's success - the accelerometer and the finger-touchable screen (granted this was also software). Having one of the largest screens also helped. I think we are just at the cusp of hardware innovation in mobiles.
What? Even the iPhone OS runs on different hardware -- the iPhone, iPhone 3G, and various iPods. Even with the different hardware, it still works "well enough" everywhere.
Windows mobile and the Blackberry OS run on a variety of phones, and they all seem to run the same software just fine. And FWIW, desktop OSes that run on widely varying hardware all seem to be just fine, too. (Windows obviously works well enough, as does Linux / FreeBSD / NetBSD / OpenBSD.)
Nice Apple fanboi-ing though, I really enjoyed it.
Windows mobile and the Blackberry OS run on a variety of phones, and they all seem to run the same software just fine. And FWIW, desktop OSes that run on widely varying hardware all seem to be just fine, too. (Windows obviously works well enough, as does Linux / FreeBSD / NetBSD / OpenBSD.)
Nice Apple fanboi-ing though, I really enjoyed it.
Gosh, I'm not familiar with the term "fanboi," does it mean anyone who doesn't agree with you that Windows works well enough? Or anyone who thinks that a hardware company that makes its own OS has certain advantages over an OS company that has no control over the wide variety of devices it must support?
It could be just me, but I think that last line really detracts from the comment. It moves from debating the merits of an argument to a personal attack.
It could be just me, but I think that last line really detracts from the comment. It moves from debating the merits of an argument to a personal attack.
> does it mean anyone who doesn't agree with you that Windows works well enough?
Well I think that the fact they they still are by far the dominant OS would at least mean that somebody with any sense of balance wouldn't use them as an example of failure. I think you have to be pretty closed off from the real world to think that is a reasonable argument.
If you look at the history of personal and business computing it is clear that OS's that work with multiple hardware vendors have predominated. People who see several years of success by the iPhone and assume that everything about it must be the future of computing are in my view deluded.
Well I think that the fact they they still are by far the dominant OS would at least mean that somebody with any sense of balance wouldn't use them as an example of failure. I think you have to be pretty closed off from the real world to think that is a reasonable argument.
If you look at the history of personal and business computing it is clear that OS's that work with multiple hardware vendors have predominated. People who see several years of success by the iPhone and assume that everything about it must be the future of computing are in my view deluded.
"Works" or even "works well" is orthogonal to "successful" or "popular." The word "failure" is clearly an antonym of "successful," but that isn't the word I used.
Typically, products have a continuum of functionality from 100% dysfunctional to nearly 100% functional. The most successful products often compromise some functionality to achieve marketplace success. Those products that don't compromise often are less successful and appeal to a smaller audience.
That doesn't make the more successful and less functional products better or worse in some abstract sense of "goodness," but it does mean they don't work as well.
Typically, products have a continuum of functionality from 100% dysfunctional to nearly 100% functional. The most successful products often compromise some functionality to achieve marketplace success. Those products that don't compromise often are less successful and appeal to a smaller audience.
That doesn't make the more successful and less functional products better or worse in some abstract sense of "goodness," but it does mean they don't work as well.
> The word "failure" is clearly an antonym of "successful," but that isn't the word I used.
True but in the context of the full thread, I was talking about the original poster's prediction of Android becoming Windows which would be their 'demise'. Talking about the demise of a product is clearly more on the success/failure axis.
> The most successful products often compromise some functionality to achieve marketplace success.
I'd say every product compromises some functionality in order to provide other functionality. The more successful products reach a balance of functionality that suits a larger portion of the marketplace.
> That doesn't make the more successful and less functional products better or worse in some abstract sense of "goodness," but it does mean they don't work as well.
I'd say your 'work as well' and 'abstract sense of "goodness"' are pretty much the same thing. They are both subjective measures in this context.
You can often get groups of people who will agree strongly on subjective areas. For example people who think that Jazz music is 'better' than Rock music. Sometimes their subjective views can become extremely self re-enforcing and harden to the extent that they see them as axioms that can be used for proofs in arguments. That's what I believe I saw happening here with the original poster. When someone demonstrates this sort of extreme devotion to a viewpoint it isn't surprising that someone would use the term 'fanboy' to describe them.
True but in the context of the full thread, I was talking about the original poster's prediction of Android becoming Windows which would be their 'demise'. Talking about the demise of a product is clearly more on the success/failure axis.
> The most successful products often compromise some functionality to achieve marketplace success.
I'd say every product compromises some functionality in order to provide other functionality. The more successful products reach a balance of functionality that suits a larger portion of the marketplace.
> That doesn't make the more successful and less functional products better or worse in some abstract sense of "goodness," but it does mean they don't work as well.
I'd say your 'work as well' and 'abstract sense of "goodness"' are pretty much the same thing. They are both subjective measures in this context.
You can often get groups of people who will agree strongly on subjective areas. For example people who think that Jazz music is 'better' than Rock music. Sometimes their subjective views can become extremely self re-enforcing and harden to the extent that they see them as axioms that can be used for proofs in arguments. That's what I believe I saw happening here with the original poster. When someone demonstrates this sort of extreme devotion to a viewpoint it isn't surprising that someone would use the term 'fanboy' to describe them.
>What? Even the iPhone OS runs on different hardware -- the iPhone, iPhone 3G, and various iPods. Even with the different hardware, it still works "well enough" everywhere.
There's very little difference in the hardware there. The 3G has slightly better hardware + GPS, and the Touch has no phone. But most of the components are the same. That's not quite the same as running on completely different models from different manufacturers. I don't share the concerns about Android voiced in your comment's parent, but I don't think the iPhone OS is a good counterexample.
>Nice Apple fanboi-ing though, I really enjoyed it.
Unless the parent edited his comment drastically, this is completely unfounded, and it's also the kind of lowbrow ad homimen crap I'd like to think the HN community is above.
There's very little difference in the hardware there. The 3G has slightly better hardware + GPS, and the Touch has no phone. But most of the components are the same. That's not quite the same as running on completely different models from different manufacturers. I don't share the concerns about Android voiced in your comment's parent, but I don't think the iPhone OS is a good counterexample.
>Nice Apple fanboi-ing though, I really enjoyed it.
Unless the parent edited his comment drastically, this is completely unfounded, and it's also the kind of lowbrow ad homimen crap I'd like to think the HN community is above.
I agree with the parent - the one thing the iPhone has going for it is a _consistent_ platform, which allows developers to design the user experience around a hardware set that is pretty much standardized. I highly doubt the 18 phones that Android will be on come year end will all have standardized on things like screen resolution, touch features, hard/soft keyboard, etc, and so we'll see a fractured user (and developer) experience. I'm certain that Android will be a wild success, much like other mobile phone OS's before the iPhone were successful, but I don't think it will take off like the iPhone has.
The comparison to trying to be the "windows" of the mobile phone was right on (in my opinion).
The comparison to trying to be the "windows" of the mobile phone was right on (in my opinion).
Except that Google's monopolies, if they exist, are elsewhere. You get the source code to the whole OS and system - how cool is that for a hacker? So it's sort of like Windows+Linux. I'm waiting for this second generation of hardware to come out and then jumping (from Nokia). Android gives you way more than J2ME, and is definitely nicer to work with than Symbian (from everything I've heard - I've never used the C++ stuff). iPhones are nice, but being a 'hacker', I want open and accessible.
I don't think it needs to be a black and white thing where either you are stuck with a single vendor or the user experience goes to hell. There is a middle ground between anarchy and dictatorship.
Windows Mobile good enough? Did it ever occur to the WM designers that wiping the entire handset for a OS upgrade isn't the best experience. iTunes isn't the best program but it's day when compared to the night of a WM upgrade.
"Installing the new software will erase all data on the device."
"All third-party applications and data that remain on the device prior to downloading will be deleted and unretrievable"
http://support.t-mobile.com/doc/tm23435.xml
"Installing the new software will erase all data on the device."
"All third-party applications and data that remain on the device prior to downloading will be deleted and unretrievable"
http://support.t-mobile.com/doc/tm23435.xml
I feel like when they figure out how to get the Cell processor into phones, it'll just swallow up the Android market.
Not that I don't love Apple, but due to a large family plan I can't switch carriers. Plus, it's always good when multiple companies can compete effectively. As a long time Mac user - back from the days before the Mac was cool again - I remember how hard it was to get good quality apps. The web, becoming more and more of a platform, and Apple's return to prosperity changed that.
Maybe I'm just being a worrier (it's been known to happen), but I'd like to see another platform drum up the developer community that the iPhone has. I'd rather that the mobile space had better competition than the desktop space did, say, 9 years ago.