RE: Greed kills: Why smartphone lock-in will fail and open source win
Chris H.I recommend that you read Greed kills: Why smartphone lock-in will fail and open source win yourself, but to summarize, esr predicts that iPhone OS vs. Android will play out the same way that the early PC wars played out back in the day.
There are two things I think are relevant to this argument. One is the recent Apple-HTC patent suits. The other is giving a definition of "win" and "fail". I won't comment on the patent suits because I have no expertise whatsoever there, and those I rely on to digest such things for me haven't had time to comb through the details of the patents yet. The fact that the suits exist though seems to be a significant departure from how things played out in the PC wars.
I do have some thoughts on appropriate definitions of "win" and "fail" though. One possibility is defining winning to be having a plurality of market share. The second definition of win is to be exceedingly profitable. These definitions are not mutually exclusive, and importantly under the second definition there can be multiple winners. The second definition's a bit vague, but the point is that Apple is in the game to make money off of the devices, though presumably selling apps is profitable for them as well. There are also hints that Apple intends to enter the mobile advertising game. I assume that Google intends to make it's money buy having a huge market share, and getting users to use their other ad-revenue generating services.
The interesting scenario is if Google grabs the lion's share of the market, but Apple still manages to be profitable. This might look something like the Windows vs. OS X market share numbers we see today. It could be the case that the nature of the mobile apps you are developing determine which platform you should target. If your application is free, but you intend to make money off of advertising or a service then perhaps Android is your best bet. Perhaps the App Store will continue to be the best place to actually sell apps though. Success stories for Android developers seem to be few and far between. This might change as Android market share grows, but selling apps in the Android Market might never be as profitable as selling in the App Store.
Reader Comments (3)
I think that you're right about the definition of "win" and "fail", but I think the author of that article misses a much bigger point: The consumer of today is not the consumer of the 1980s.
First, lets not even compare the server market with the desktop market or smartphone market. People who run servers are, for the most part, computer people who know how to program and write scriptsh. They, OF COURSE, are going to want an open system that they'll have some control over. The server market in my mind isn't even close to something you can compare to other markets...
Now, focus on desktop PCs in the 1980s. Who was really buying them? I answered to myself, "nerds and scientists." I don't think I'm that far off.
Why did IBM win back then? Well, I would say if I was a nerd or a scientist I would want that control over my system. I'd want the openness. I'd want to have access to the things I was doing. My point is that the people buying the machines were the same as the people developing on them. I can see how this would effect the choice of purchase for this class of consumer.
But his whole argument in my mind fails when we look at who the consumer is in modern day. The tides have changed. The new consumer is anyone, not just a computer nerd or a scientist. My mother bought a Windows phone and she didn't care about openness, she wanted tight integration with her operating system. Frankly, if she could've gotten an iPhone she would have but she's on Verizon and doesn't have AT&T service anywhere she lives. Anyways, the point is that the majority of the market don't give a shit about how open a system is. In fact, I can see that "openness" is kinda scary to them.
What is this really about though? I think people hate change, especially developers, (use your own nerd voice. I suggest using Conan O'Brien's nerd voice) "uh please do not derive new changes to the standard operating system with round-robin scheduling and multitasking." Sure, the AppStore has an approval process, get over it. The real "not open" argument seems to me to be about the fact that iPhone OS is a framework. It's not a "traditional" OS, not a full-blown OS, it doesn't have a fully "open" API, and to me that's a good thing. Most people don't need a full OS on their smartphone. Android is like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame.
In the end, and it's been said before, the people who care about openness (developers) care a lot, but they're inevitably going to go with the phone that can give them the most exposure and make them the most money. While openness might be great for the developer, it doesn't necessarily make the user experience better.
I would add that no one knows how this is going to play out. Android might win based on the fact they're not tied to AT&T but I doubt that. I just think the argument about openness is bullshit. Linux users are migrating to Macs and they care about openness probably more than anyone. OS X isn't _that_ open.
One thing is that Apple has to do is stay ahead of the game. I have no doubt that they can as they are putting out devices that others can only show concept videos for. They just have to stay one step ahead. Android is catching up but Apple probably already has something new up their sleeves. Booom!
Oh, and Java sucks.
I'm not sure that it really comes down to openness. That is indeed a consideration for geeks, but as you say, Joe-consumer probably doesn't care and maybe finds that a little scary. The fact is though that he has a point when he talks about the business model. Google isn't looking to make $300 / phone. They are looking to make a little money on a lot of phones. They are willing to spread the money around, and have these other 3rd parties compete and build the hardware. That will inevitably drive prices down. The reason Google has a decent shot of winning is that they are competent designers, and have adopted a business model that will drive prices down and get the phone in the hands of users. Right now, most people probably think iPhone when they hear smartphone, but down the line it might be that when you go and just get some phone, it is running Android. Android is the cheap default, like Windows, but some customers will continue to opt for the more expensive alternative.
That's what I see esr's argument as boiling down to anyway. Whether Apple can manage to stay ahead of the game, and how the patent suits play into thing we'll have to see.
I see now what you mean. Your argument stands.
I guess Windows is everywhere but I don't consider it a "win"