4 ms·

If you read the article, he's not making that assertion about the relative worth of Android. (And opening up with that as the basis of your argument is a dising

If you read the article, he's not making that assertion about the relative worth of Android. (And opening up with that as the basis of your argument is a disingenuous tactic, if done intentionally.) He's arguing that the third-party software library is weak, especially away from "enhancement/tweak" type software. Flexibility is useful only insofar as it translates into capabilities of high value to end users. It's not a feature, especially if you're an end user and not a programmer/hacker. In most product domains, users have clearly shown that as the category matures, they are more than willing to sacrifice flexibility, the ability to modify and even the ability to repair at home in favor of a more integrated, reliable and cheaper product. (See: cars, home electronics, home appliances, clothing, food.) Consumers evaluate product purchases based on what the device can do for them out of the box, not after hours of tweaking and configuration. Frankly, I don't think _either_ platform truly has "killer apps" - I don't think people are going out and buying iPhones so they can play Star Wars Arcade: Falcon Gunner or something. A "killer app" is an exclusive app that drives customers to buy that platform just so they can run it. Arguably at present no such app exists on either mobile platform.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
The point you make about the killer app is very true. Halo on the XBox came to mind. I think Google hoped turn-by-turn navigation would be it initially for Android, but I agree that (for the average user) there aren't any killer apps. If you get into domain niches (such as medical), that might be different.
- RickHull 16y ago
  Google Nav is pretty friggin awesome. I had a TomTom for the first year I lived in NYC and the last year I owned a car, and Google Nav was comparable on all fronts, as demoed in rental cars up and down the Eastern Seaboard since then. Notable downsides include battery life and built-in mounting options. Notable upsides include no upfront purchase, free updates, constant updates, better information density (pixels per meatspace volume, roughly), ease of ad-hoc "mounting" (e.g. next to the speedometer, behind the steering wheel), and automatic "straight-to-pocket-on-exit" theft protection. It's free, it works well, and it integrates nicely with other Android apps (notably Google Maps).
- kenjackson 16y ago
  The problem with Gruber's argument though is there are no killer apps on the iPhone either. He lists a bunch of iOS apps in his story that I've never heard of. There's no Netscape. There's no Excel, Word. There's no Lotus 1-2-3. Today I've only really seen four killer apps on a phone... email, SMS, mobile web browsers, and GPS. Facebook would be a marginal fifth. Everything else is stuff that frankly most people would barely notice if it was missing.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
The killer app for both platforms is the web. This is fairly obvious if you remember the original iPhone had few apps and was widely considered a poor phone (or cameraphone). The iPod was the third leg of the original announcement but it's hard to see that as a killer app when an iPod was available stand alone. I'be never heard exclusive be a necessary feature of a killer app before this. It's more like a console fanboy bragging point and for technically comparable platforms it often seems driven by kickbacks from the platform owner. Even then it's usually just time limited exclusivity.
- tomkarlo 16y ago
  What constituted a Killer app 3-4 years ago, when the iPhone hit the market, probably isn't one any more. At the time, decent web browsing on a mobile truly was a killer app because none of the alternatives (RIM, Palm, etc) had decent web browsers. So it was essentially exclusive - if you wanted a great web browser on a phone, the iPhone was your choice. Now it's basically a commodity feature, since all of the major mobile platforms have a workable web browser. "Exclusive" is maybe too strong a word, since it implies that no other platform will ever have that Killer Feature / App, e.g. Halo. But if only one platform has it when you need to buy, it's for all intents and purposes an exclusive.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago

The point you make about the killer app is very true. Halo on the XBox came to mind. I think Google hoped turn-by-turn navigation would be it initially for Android, but I agree that (for the average user) there aren't any killer apps. If you get into domain niches (such as medical), that might be different.

RickHull 16y ago
Google Nav is pretty friggin awesome. I had a TomTom for the first year I lived in NYC and the last year I owned a car, and Google Nav was comparable on all fronts, as demoed in rental cars up and down the Eastern Seaboard since then. Notable downsides include battery life and built-in mounting options. Notable upsides include no upfront purchase, free updates, constant updates, better information density (pixels per meatspace volume, roughly), ease of ad-hoc "mounting" (e.g. next to the speedometer, behind the steering wheel), and automatic "straight-to-pocket-on-exit" theft protection. It's free, it works well, and it integrates nicely with other Android apps (notably Google Maps).
kenjackson 16y ago
The problem with Gruber's argument though is there are no killer apps on the iPhone either. He lists a bunch of iOS apps in his story that I've never heard of. There's no Netscape. There's no Excel, Word. There's no Lotus 1-2-3. Today I've only really seen four killer apps on a phone... email, SMS, mobile web browsers, and GPS. Facebook would be a marginal fifth. Everything else is stuff that frankly most people would barely notice if it was missing.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

The killer app for both platforms is the web. This is fairly obvious if you remember the original iPhone had few apps and was widely considered a poor phone (or cameraphone). The iPod was the third leg of the original announcement but it's hard to see that as a killer app when an iPod was available stand alone. I'be never heard exclusive be a necessary feature of a killer app before this. It's more like a console fanboy bragging point and for technically comparable platforms it often seems driven by kickbacks from the platform owner. Even then it's usually just time limited exclusivity.

tomkarlo 16y ago
What constituted a Killer app 3-4 years ago, when the iPhone hit the market, probably isn't one any more. At the time, decent web browsing on a mobile truly was a killer app because none of the alternatives (RIM, Palm, etc) had decent web browsers. So it was essentially exclusive - if you wanted a great web browser on a phone, the iPhone was your choice. Now it's basically a commodity feature, since all of the major mobile platforms have a workable web browser. "Exclusive" is maybe too strong a word, since it implies that no other platform will ever have that Killer Feature / App, e.g. Halo. But if only one platform has it when you need to buy, it's for all intents and purposes an exclusive.