Android FTW
TechCrunch and a number of other blogs I read on the industry seem to be pretty down on Android’s chances. The logic was summed up thusly by Erick Schonfeld:
And frankly, it is difficult to find mobile software startups excited about making Android apps at this point. This is a platform war. If there are no compelling apps for Android, nobody will buy the phones.
Wrong and wrong. For one, as many have pointed out, the iPhone sold most of its units before there were legitimate third-party apps. It sold them because the phone itself appealed to users. This has been the prevailing paradigm since the industry’s inception, and as we move into the new era of mobile devices will probably remain a significant factor. The primary things people do, talk, email/text, web surf, etc., will still be best served by certain carriers and certain form factors, and hardware will still be a key selling point. It’s clearly on the road to no longer being the only selling point, but for now it’s still not that far off.
The beauty of Android’s openness is that many different manufacturers will use it to make many different phones. The iPhone comes in one variant, the full touch screen, no physical keyboard, smartphone. Great for web surfing and listening to music, awful for use as a phone or email device. Android will surely end up in that form factor at some point too, along with every other configuration imaginable from free (after rebate) clamshell to Blackberryesque, keypad loving email machines.
It’s much like Apple vs. Microsoft in the early ’90s. Apple will make one high-quality (by some definitions of that term at least) model that runs on one low-quality carrier, and fit one very niche (but highly profitable) consumer segment. Android will, if the vision comes to fruition, enjoy the collective development and marketing budgets of a range of mega corporations, and fit every conceivable consumer desire. Whatever type of phone you want, on whichever carrier you want it on, Android will have a model for that. Apple just cannot compete.
And then there are the developers. As someone in the startup space, I’m way more likely to develop for Android than iPhone if the user bases are comparable. For one, I don’t have to pass Apple’s ridiculous approval process. What’s the wait time like on that now? I also don’t have to worry that AT&T might not like what I’m doing and force Apple to employ the old kill switch. I don’t have to worry that Apple will simply build in the functionality I’ve designed and flip the kill switch themselves.
We’ve already seen what’s happened to Facebook developers over the last few months as they’ve exerted more and more control over their platform. Throughout the last few decades we’ve seen one closed platform after another fall to their open competitors. Mac to Windows. AOL to the internet. It seems foolish to say that this will be any different.
I’m not sure that any one particular Android phone will ever outsell the iPhone, but it doesn’t matter. 100 different Android phones on a multitude of carriers certainly will. It’s wonderful that HTC is kicking things off for them too. HTC has been making the best smart phones around for a couple years now, and the Dream looks pretty aptly named. Given the remarkable disparity between the CDMA and GSM providers in the country, in terms of coverage, call quality and data speeds, I’m praying they’ll release a Sprint or Verizon version shortly.
Either way, in one corner we have Apple and Cingular pushing a closed platform. In the other corner, we have every other cell phone manufacturer and every other cell phone carrier pushing an open platform. I don’t see how it’s possible to not be excited about Android’s chances.
August 18, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Question, do you own an iPhone?
August 18, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Given the history of “every other cell phone manufacturer and every other cell phone carrier” when it comes to producing phones with decent interfaces, I think the iPhone looks pretty safe.
I wouldn't count out Google in building a good platform, but I doubt that the carriers could help themselves to tweak (lock-down) things here and there in closed-sourced ways.
August 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm
There's lots of uninformed speculation in your article, but just to pick nits on one paragraph:
“And then there are the developers. As someone in the startup space, I’m way more likely to develop for Android than iPhone if the user bases are comparable.”
That's a big “if”. Android users don't even exist yet. The Apple numbers on sold applications are staggering. You heard about the girl with the crossword app, right? That doesn't exist yet for Android because there isn't a single Android device out. Try asking 10 people on the street about the Google phone. They'll have no idea what you're talking about.
“For one, I don’t have to pass Apple’s ridiculous approval process.”
No, but you'll have to pass whatever carrier's ridiculous approval process that exists. Some pieces of the API you are developing with will also have to be supported by the handset maker. Welcome to device and os fragmentation in the mobile market.
“What’s the wait time like on that now?”
Don't know, but let us know what the wait time on getting your app certified takes. It will be an interesting comparison. With the carriers right now, the approval process is a major headache. On some carriers you must submit the same application multiple times–one for each handset device even if the code is the same.
” I also don’t have to worry that AT&T might not like what I’m doing and force Apple to employ the old kill switch. I don’t have to worry that Apple will simply build in the functionality I’ve designed and flip the kill switch themselves.”
You think the carriers don't have similar processes in place already?
This is to say nothing of the difficulty of developing for multiple screen dimensions, and maybe/maybe not support for sound, video, camera, security, problematic hardware, etc, etc. The iPhone takes so many headaches out of the equation.
“More open” means absolutely nothing to the people buying the devices, even if it gives the geeks the warm and fuzzies.
August 18, 2008 at 7:59 pm
From what I've read (and that may be outdated) you don't need your app to be certified on Android. Is that incorrect? From ReadWriteWeb
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/android_is...
“Google Developer Advocate Jason Chen told the Android breakout session that developers won't need to get Android applications certified by anyone nor will there be any hidden APIs accessible only to handset makers or mobile operators.”
Of course some apps won't work on some phones, just like some programs don't work on some PCs (for instance, programs meant to play DVDs do nothing if the PC has no dvd drive).
More open doesn't cause more people to buy Android, you're right. Having the collective marketing budget and support of 5x as many corporations, as well as being on every form factor rather than one does.
August 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Every other cell phone manufacturer was not working on a truly open OS. And they were not Google.
August 18, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Nope. I've spent a decent amount of time playing with them (though not the 3g model), but my primary objectives in a mobile device are email/sms and calls, so I can't leave behind the dedicated keypad.
August 18, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Great writeup. I'm just glad something is coming out this year! Hopefully it will do well and encourage other carriers and phone manufacturers to hurry up and release their Android phones.
August 18, 2008 at 9:59 pm
You sound like a verizon employee!
August 19, 2008 at 5:15 am
As with all these arguments, I think it's pointless saying that any party will be the 'winner' – we'll end up with both sides having a fair chunk of the market, more than likely.
However, no matter how much marketing budget and 'open-ness' the Androids have on their side, we shouldn't forget how difficult it is to mimic user experience. Even the most recent demos of Android look Linux-y, without 1% of the beauty or attention to detail of the iPhone – just look at the icons, for a start – things like that DO matter. And that 'beauty' is incredibly difficult to copy; more-so than 'functionality'.
People have put-up with poor mobile interfaces for years, which is the main reason the iPhone is so popular. The Android team seem to believe it's functionality that will win them users, whereas I believe it's a much deeper (and more difficult) task of emulating Apple's far, far superior knowledge of user interaction. Nobody has managed it with portable media players, why should it be any different on mobiles?
August 19, 2008 at 5:27 am
I've just bought an iPhone 3g after spending lots of time playing with colleagues/friends' iphones, and I have to say, you can't fully appreciate just how good the phone is unless you are using it as your day to day phone.
I used to be a fairly fast texter on a t9 keypad but after owning the iphone only since thursday, I'm already knocking out emails and texts much faster.
August 19, 2008 at 7:00 am
The real person getting hit by Android are Symbian and Windows Mobile, not Apple. Blackberry has a brand, Apple has a brand, but Symbian is not a brand that anyone loves, and nor does Windows seem to be in the mobile space. Android will hammer the latter two and not really dig into the former two. I think its a good thing but I think the lag right now is killing them.
August 19, 2008 at 7:25 am
What makes you think an Android phone will be open?
I had a Danger Sidekick device and saw first hand how the guy who created Android (Google hired him) treated users. Danger had very creepy way of managing public perceptions. They immediately bought the main discussion forum devoted to their device, and controlled discussion tightly. They were so paranoid that they were not allowed to use company computers to access fan sites about the device (other than the main fan site which they had bought). Not sure why. With the Sidekick, your data was locked up in XML on a server with no accessible API. It was on the T-Mobile web site, but only if you were able to scrape it. I see no reason the Android phone, created by the same person, will be any different.
When I'm able to buy an unlocked Android phone, with a free (as in both speech and beer) toolchain provided by Google that gives me full programming access to the device at all levels including the BIOS, then I'll believe you about it being an open device. Until then, I'll continue to think your thinking is just naive Google fanboi-ism.
But even if they did provide an open device, you would have to find a network on which to use it. But that may be a red herring. With a truly open device, hackers would have the means and motivation to start work on making WiFi packet switching finally work as a phone network. That doesn't solve everything, but it would help. I'm just afraid Google isn't going to give us an open phone, as you think they are.
August 19, 2008 at 8:13 am
I agree that Android is something to get excited about because of how much value it could unlock. Apple has actually helped Google (and the entire industry for that matter) with it's efforts on the IPhone.
A lot of people I talk to confuse it as a “iphone” vs. “gphone” battle. It's really hard to beat Apple in term's of usability and experience — but for Google the big bet is on the platform.
August 19, 2008 at 9:01 am
Perhaps this video with Rich Miner clarifies some things?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUrMI9ZGxQ8
And this one on T-Mobile dropping the traditional on-deck model…
http://www.moconews.net/entry/419-t-mobile-usa-...
August 19, 2008 at 9:27 am
“…the guy who created Android …” – wow, so one person created Android and was also running Danger on its own? Must be a superhuman – no wonder Google hired him…
August 19, 2008 at 11:19 am
Because people all use mp3 players for one or two purposes, meaning one or two models can accommodate 90% of the population.
With mobile devices, it's much different. Some people use them just to talk. Some primarily for email. Both of those are served very poorly by iPhones.
Portable media players are more like a walkman, whereas a mobile device is more like a PC. And just like a PC, price and selection (and in this case, carrier as well, as some people for one reason or another can't go with AT&T) play into purchasing decisions.
August 19, 2008 at 11:25 am
There's no question typing is faster than on a T9. That's actually Apple's best audience, the people who think they invented the smartphone.
Try a blackberry or a Palm for a month and then tell me what you think.
August 19, 2008 at 11:56 am
You know, I hate most things about Verizon, like support, etc. But those things seem to suck with every carrier (at least the few I've used). But Verizon's coverage, and especially their 3g coverage, is phenomenal. You really notice it when you get an EVDO Rev A card.
August 19, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I like the old blog layout better, for what it's worth.
August 19, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Yeah, it busted the RSS feed though. There'll be another soon.
August 20, 2008 at 4:31 am
Yeah – somehow with apple the technology AND the price increases. I'd like to get a phone that helps me save money and I see Android as pointing in that direction. If it's anything like Google it will help get out of the box and into the cloud…
August 20, 2008 at 5:25 pm
It is the Mac PC Wars Redux
,Michael Martin
http://www.googleandblog.com/
September 18, 2008 at 2:23 am
[...] lot of people, in response to my post (and similar ones from other people) about why I think Android is in a good position to capture huge market share and the iPhone is not, seemed to take issue with [...]