Android Again

http://mattmaroon.com/?p=476

by brett • 18 years ago

21 30 18 years ago

mattmaroon.com

volida• 18 years ago

i don't get it

Symbian has a 70% of the market. Why is Android suddenly so important?

sorry but as much I like Google I don't want them running the O/S on my phone.

wvenable• 18 years ago

Symbian is hell on developers. It is a platform, but it's not really used/marketed as a platform.

mattmaroon5• 18 years ago

Right. But they do seem to be trying to move in that direction somewhat. I'd consider them Android's greatest rival.

shimi2• 18 years ago

S60 is a platform, Symbian is an OS

And you're right about the development, its hell!!!!

I just want to add, the J60 isn't as good as the Android's Java environment (not even close), and it carries the penalty of the J2ME slogan write once test everywhere (to the point where different open S60 devices will behave differently)

Symbian week point is its development environment, I imagine they will have to respond in that front in the next versions.

axod3• 18 years ago

The iPhone has the best browser available for a smartphone... and if you have a browser you can do pretty much anything.

What is the lure going to be for people to stop moving to webapps, and suddenly embrace an open platform and installable apps?

The web, through a browser, is the best open platform IMHO

ashu3• 18 years ago

What is the lure going to be for people to stop moving to webapps, and suddenly embrace an open platform and installable apps?

The fact that internet connectivity on a desktop vs. on your mobile device is different by an order of magnitude. When you get ubiquitous and fast internet on the mobile device (not some bizarre spotty coverage), then things will change. Maybe Europe is ahead in regards to that, but in the US, I don't see that happening very soon.

Edit: oh, and also the processor speeds. So, basically I will bet on webapps for mobile after 3-4 years. Until then, at least, installable apps will work better.

Another Edit: perhaps, when something like Google Gears is everywhere, it might change. But offline support - both for code and data - is kind of essential.

axod3• 18 years ago

Europe is way way ahead so perhaps that is where the difference lies.

I don't know about processor speed, I can see some intensive 3d special effect games needing native, but for puzzle games, or most 'apps' javascript in a browser is pretty much there.

paulgb2• 18 years ago

"Another Edit: perhaps, when something like Google Gears is everywhere, it might change. But offline support - both for code and data - is kind of essential."

HTML 5 includes a storage API, including a SQL database. Apparently the iPhone already has it, and any browser based on WebKit (Nokia, Android?) will likely have it in the not too distant future.

michaelneale3• 18 years ago

well given android also uses webkit, even with the option of installable apps, this will only help web apps if it takes off - as the lowest cost way to target a mobile app for both android and iphone is a webkit compatible web app.

shimi2• 18 years ago

I must add that the S60 (Mostly Nokia's Symbian devices) are using webkit as well

axod3• 18 years ago

Don't forget the tabs, zoom, text entry, scrolling etc that makes Safari on the iphone so easy. As long as android has all that, it could be good :)

mattmaroon5• 18 years ago

The popularity of native apps on the iPhone itself is a pretty strong argument as to why. Phones have all sorts of features that can't be accessed by browsers. GPS, Camera, Bluetooth, who knows what else in 5 years.

Lots of stuff benefits from integration with the OS.

biohacker422• 18 years ago

I don't think you can generalize the PC's lead over Mac to say that Android will eventually overtake.

First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market leader in certain market segments.

Those markets have always been dominated by Mac.

The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you say the same about cellphones?

It seems to me that cellphones are much more narrowly defined and used. Some are fashion accessories, some like the Blackberry are like a communication utility.

But none are a generic computing device, and I don't think they'll ever be. So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny thingy.

You could even say that with Vista's DRM, even the PC is heading that way, where the open platform will eventually be relegated to a niche enthusiast market.

People like us will pay a premium to get a PC as open as one anyone can by today.

ashu3• 18 years ago

But none are a generic computing device, and I don't think they'll ever be

Matt's central assumption is that they will become generic computing devices and I concur. Why do you think they won't ever be generic computing devices? I think of my iPhone as pretty generic and "capable" of doing a lot of things. I had a dumb phone-only-phone a year ago.

biohacker422• 18 years ago

Mostly I think the UI has much less bandwidth then something like a laptop.

Why I say UI, I don't mean the iPhone, or any one phone, but any device small enough to fit into one hand.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do think ease of use will be more of a selling point then power and capability.

SwellJoe3• 18 years ago

First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market leader in certain market segments.

If you're willing to play the "in this market segment" game, you can make anybody a winner. OpenBSD totally has a lock on the "paranoid dudes in their mom's basement who think Debian is too damned corporate" market segment.

The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you say the same about cellphones?

I think you can. "A generic mobile device". There, I said it.

The PC, in hindsight, I think was obviously a case of fully proprietary (Apple) vs. mostly open (the PC, with DOS and later Windows). One can easily say, "It's the applications!" And you'd be right...but why were there more apps for PC than Mac? Bigger market, sure. But, if Apple could stop people from making applications for the Mac, and Microsoft couldn't, I know which OS I'd be developing for. And that's the situation here. Apple are basically being bastards to their customers and their developers, and because Apple products are really attractive, extremely well-executed, and generally good and useful, people haven't immediately noticed what a bastard Apple is being about the whole thing. But, I think Matt's right. People will notice that Apple is treating them like crap, with abusive contracts, abusive terms for distribution of applications, and anti-competitive practices with regard to who gets to make and sell apps for the iPhone. It's already happening, and Apple will either wise up, or lose out.

You could even say that with Vista's DRM, even the PC is heading that way, where the open platform will eventually be relegated to a niche enthusiast market.

Nobody is saying that Microsoft is open, or good for consumers. At least, I didn't take Matt's post to indicate that at all. He merely used the early PC vs. Mac war as an interesting historical precedent for what's going to play out in the mobile market and for the very same reasons: Cost, availability of apps, and control (i.e. who controls your device: you, or the manufacturer?).

I think the comparisons are pretty obvious and pretty difficult to argue against. The current behavior and direction of Microsoft (and its own historical abusive behavior) is irrelevant. Nobody is going to argue that the PC was a less open platform than the Mac in the 80s and 90s, and changes in the landscape since then don't alter history.

So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny thingy.

I think it'll be dominated by the cheapest thing that does what people want, just like PCs. It is becoming a commodity...as most mass-manufactured goods do.

ashu3• 18 years ago

It continually amazes me why people have such intense hatred of Apple. At least, you give credit, but still: "bastards"? Abusive contracts: who knows who forced an abusive contract for the phone? I agree with you that cheaper, working things will beat the crap out of the iPhone, but still: "bastards"? What did they do to you, man?

wired247• 18 years ago

The reason that Microsoft/Windows has such a dominant market share has nothing to do with how 'open' the PC market is—it is due to the historical predominance of Microsoft DOS which is related to the fact that IBM was the first company that sold 'Personal' Computers into businesses. In the 1970's virtually no individuals had computers of their own, and the vast majority of people who had used a computer were exposed to it at work.

As businesses purchased IBM PCs instead of terminals for large IBM mainframes or minis, more and more people were exposed to computers. Apple was selling computers into a very different market—they were serving computer 'enthusiasts', in the 1970's that was a very limited group akin to those people who build thier own sailboats or airplanes. IBM was exposing a much larger and more homogenous group of people to computers—people with jobs ;-)

As computers became more mainstream over the years there were just more people who had used and were familiar with 'PCs' running MS-DOS, which eventually transitioned into Windows. The Microsoft piece of the personal-computer market has ALWAYS been bigger in the modern era, because it was the easy choice—people used it at work, bought it for home, and were comfortable recommending the same approach for their friends and co-workers.

Mobile devices such as smartphones are VERY 'personal'. With the possible exception of the BlackBerry, which will have been imposed on a lot of people through their jobs (as the PC/MS combo was in the 70's and 80's) people are free to choose whatever they want for their device. The majority of the market will not choose a smartphone based on whether or not the OS is 'open' or 'closed'—they will very likely not understand the distinction.

Apple understands that users will not be interested in apportioning blame between the hardware manufacturer, the OS provider and the applications developers. AT&T probably understands this too, and so will other carriers. If/when Android develops any of the little issues that are very common with applications written for other 'open' platforms, those issues will reflect poorly on all parties involved.

The public at large will not understand and accept the compromises in applications that those of us in the "blogosphere" take for granted They will not keep coming back to try an application through 25 "point" releases until it is finally/potentially better and more robust than any 'closed-OS' alternative - they will give up on it.

Customers will choose smartphones based on how USABLE they are, how many useful and easy-to-use features they have, how reliable they are, and how 'cool' they are. Unfortunately, Android and any other completely 'open' OS is likely to have more buggy applications and security issues than a semi-monitored 'closed' system like the iPhone OS. I do not think Android will ever be a major player in the smartphone space unless/until they modify their definition of 'open' to allow some method for 'vetting' of applications.

mattmaroon5• 18 years ago

All they need for that is a solid ratings system in the store. Or possibly some independent third party certification system. Both are easily possible.

ReverendBayes• 18 years ago

Google could end this now with a nationwide wimax buildout. Build a skype-like voice protocol on the android stack, open source a reference hardware design, and let programmers planetwide innovate on the platform. Would fell the iphone and every other carrier within a year or two.

netcan2• 18 years ago

Sure?

mattmaroon5• 18 years ago

Google failed to win the broadcast spectrum to build out anything. It's not as simple as just deciding to put up some towers.

kapitti• 18 years ago

It's comments like this:

"And there’s the Shuffle, which I’m not really sure if anyone ever purchases, but maybe it’s just for people who are too poor to buy the Nano and only own 3 CDs because most of their collection is still on 8-track."

That make me dislike Matt - there's just something about the tone of that statement.

Android Again

Related Stories