10 ms·

Steve Wozniak: Android will be the dominant smartphone platform

105 points by citizenkeys 16y ago

DanHulton 16y ago
> 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-device-platform-fragmentation-strikes-again/2625 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.
- vetinari 16y ago
  Do you have practical experience with that, or are you just repeating what you read on the internet?
  - DanHulton 16y ago
    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.
    - biafra 16y ago
      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)
      - icegreentea 16y ago
        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.
      - blub 16y ago
        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.
  - blub 16y ago
    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.
- spot 16y ago
  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.
  - DanHulton 16y ago
    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.
    - dhoe 16y ago
      Android has that.
      - sigzero 16y ago
        Joe Public doesn't care about that. Not really.
        Kliment 16y ago
        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.
        redrobot5050 16y ago
        iOS developers have more powerful tools than a task tracker app available to them in the SDK.
        16y ago
- Kylekramer 16y ago
  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.
- abrahamsen 16y ago
  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.
  - Xuzz 16y ago
    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.
    - redrobot5050 16y ago
      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.
      - Xuzz 16y ago
        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.
- Qz 16y ago
  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.
- cryptoz 16y ago
  > 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.
  - matwood 16y ago
    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.
    - cryptoz 16y ago
      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.
      - brudgers 16y ago
        >"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.
        redrobot5050 16y ago
        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?
- forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
  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.
robinwarren 16y ago
I've been thinking a bit about this recently as I've seen a number of people getting android devices because they were offered them as an upgrade when they renewed their contract. They weren't interested in spending money to get an iPhone but liked the idea of a decent browsing experience etc. All of them are happy with the device they have been given. Apple will become the Apple of the phone market much as it was the Apple of personal computer market. 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.
- davidw 16y ago
  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.
- narag 16y ago
  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.
  - bruceboughton 16y ago
    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.
asmithmd1 16y ago
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.
- axod 16y ago
  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.
  - mitjak 16y ago
    Flash support will "kill" the iPhone why exactly?
    - abstractbill 16y ago
      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.
      - axod 16y ago
        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.
        sudont 16y ago
        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/id375562663?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/farmville-by-zynga/id37556266...
johnmmix 16y ago
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-bunk/ http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/19/talk-of-mobile-dominance-is...
- robinwarren 16y ago
  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.
grammaton 16y ago
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.
- cryptoz 16y ago
  > 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.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    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.
    - cryptoz 16y ago
      Coming soon to Canada: an Android phone for $50. http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/lg-gw620-eve-coming-to-rogers-android-deftly-avoids-atandt-yet-ag/ 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.
davidedicillo 16y ago
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.
jsz0 16y ago
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.
camiller 16y ago
In 2006 MySpace was the dominate social networking site...
- redrobot5050 16y ago
  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.
  - camiller 16y ago
    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.
torme 16y ago
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.
mattparcher 16y ago
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-almost-every-app-that-i-have-is-bette/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/exclusive-woz-misquoted-a...
- martythemaniak 16y ago
  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.
  - redrobot5050 16y ago
    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.
    - martythemaniak 16y ago
      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 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.
ryanlchan 16y ago
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.
- martythemaniak 16y ago
  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.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    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.

105 points by citizenkeys 16y ago

> 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-device-platform-fragmentation-strikes-again/2625 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.

vetinari 16y ago
Do you have practical experience with that, or are you just repeating what you read on the internet?
- DanHulton 16y ago
  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.
  - biafra 16y ago
    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)
    - icegreentea 16y ago
      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.
    - blub 16y ago
      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.
- blub 16y ago
  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.
spot 16y ago
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.
- DanHulton 16y ago
  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.
  - dhoe 16y ago
    Android has that.
    - sigzero 16y ago
      Joe Public doesn't care about that. Not really.
      - Kliment 16y ago
        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.
        redrobot5050 16y ago
        iOS developers have more powerful tools than a task tracker app available to them in the SDK.
      - 16y ago
Kylekramer 16y ago
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.
abrahamsen 16y ago
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.
- Xuzz 16y ago
  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.
  - redrobot5050 16y ago
    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.
    - Xuzz 16y ago
      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.
Qz 16y ago
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.
cryptoz 16y ago
> 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.
- matwood 16y ago
  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.
  - cryptoz 16y ago
    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.
    - brudgers 16y ago
      >"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.
      - redrobot5050 16y ago
        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?
forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
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.

robinwarren 16y ago

I've been thinking a bit about this recently as I've seen a number of people getting android devices because they were offered them as an upgrade when they renewed their contract. They weren't interested in spending money to get an iPhone but liked the idea of a decent browsing experience etc. All of them are happy with the device they have been given. Apple will become the Apple of the phone market much as it was the Apple of personal computer market. 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.

davidw 16y ago
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.
narag 16y ago
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.
- bruceboughton 16y ago
  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.

asmithmd1 16y ago

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.

axod 16y ago
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.
- mitjak 16y ago
  Flash support will "kill" the iPhone why exactly?
  - abstractbill 16y ago
    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.
    - axod 16y ago
      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.
      - sudont 16y ago
        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/id375562663?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/farmville-by-zynga/id37556266...

johnmmix 16y ago

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-bunk/ http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/19/talk-of-mobile-dominance-is...

robinwarren 16y ago
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.

grammaton 16y ago

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.

cryptoz 16y ago
> 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.
- ergo98 16y ago
  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.
  - cryptoz 16y ago
    Coming soon to Canada: an Android phone for $50. http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/lg-gw620-eve-coming-to-rogers-android-deftly-avoids-atandt-yet-ag/ 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.

davidedicillo 16y ago

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.

jsz0 16y ago

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.

camiller 16y ago

In 2006 MySpace was the dominate social networking site...

redrobot5050 16y ago
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.
- camiller 16y ago
  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.

torme 16y ago

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.

mattparcher 16y ago

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-almost-every-app-that-i-have-is-bette/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/exclusive-woz-misquoted-a...

martythemaniak 16y ago
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.
- redrobot5050 16y ago
  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.
  - martythemaniak 16y ago
    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 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.

ryanlchan 16y ago

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.

martythemaniak 16y ago
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.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  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.