7 ms·

"Yes, Android is doing well, but neither RIM nor Apple is giving away its operating system, so it was close to inevitable that Android would eventually get the

by timtadh 16y ago

"Yes, Android is doing well, but neither RIM nor Apple is giving away its operating system, so it was close to inevitable that Android would eventually get the unit lead." If that is true, why doesn't the Linux desktop have the unit lead? I mean its free, installable on everything, and easily obtainable. This kinda of reasoning simply does not hold. There a loads of reasons why Android is doing well, but I don't think that being free is necessarily one of them. [Edit: I should note that other than that one line, I thought his analysis was excellent.]

semanticist 16y ago
I think what has helped Android's uptake is that it's freely alterable without having to ask someone's permission. Networks and handset manufacturers can use Android as a base and push whatever features they like without having an Apple or RIM complaining. A major part of making it freely alterable is that the manufacturer/network can make it locked down to the end-user, even if Google doesn't mind people having root on their handset the networks hate it and the networks are the handset manufacturer's customers, not end-users. I think that's why most comparisons to the desktop PC market break down for me: Dell and Apple's PC/Mac customers are almost always the end-user of their device (corporate sales excepted), so the driving force behind what goes into those products is very different. The network is the one paying the handset manufacturer, so phones are designed to meet the needs of the network. Apple and RIM have done some good work to try and change this by taking ownership of the relationship with the end-user and reducing the network to a mere carrier of data. Android is pretty much the exact opposite: by being free it becomes 'free to suit the networks' and 'free to make it match network branding'. That's not to say that Android is bad or otherwise technically lesser than BB or iOS, but I'm pretty certain that it's free availability was a huge factor in the uptake from multiple manufacturers.
mattparcher 16y ago
Windows vs. Mac is now Android vs. iPhone. Microsoft slacked off, and lost its place to the equally-ambitious Google. Desktop Linux never had a Google to push its adoption.
- blocke 16y ago
  Yep. Though I think Linux can wipe the tears from its eyes. It can be consoled by the fact its kernel and much of its userspace will be in everything without a Microsoft or Apple logo on it for years to come.
- ericflo 16y ago
  Google Chrome OS
  - mishmash 16y ago
    Should Chrome OS really count as a desktop OS, considering it doesn't even use a desktop metaphor?
ergo98 16y ago
The "Android is free" bit is remarkably foolhardy, so it is surprising that it appears in so many articles. I've heard that Microsoft charges somewhere in the range of $10 / unit for Windows Mobile, generally for an image that you quite literally set some flags and you have your gold copy (at least pre Windows Mobile 7, as my experience was with the CE variants). For Android the individual handset makers take on tremendous responsibility, not to mention that they often - for reasons of differentiation - decide to apply a generous layer of spakle on top. That doesn't come for free. Android isn't and has never been free.
- Someone 16y ago
  It think is even more true than you indicate. http://source.android.com/faqs.html http://source.android.com/faqs.html says: Devices that are properly compatible can seek approval to use the Android trademark. ... Android Market is only licensed to handset manufacturers shipping devices. ... The Google apps for Android, such as YouTube, Google Maps and Navigation, Gmail, and so on are Google properties that are not part of Android, and are licensed separately. I cannot find proof of it, but I would guess neither of these are free.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
nextparadigms 16y ago
The main reason why Android is winning is because they were the first quality (iOS like) multi-manufacturer OS that was pushed by a big company that most people love and got a lot of momentum. I don't think being free or open-source was the main reason Android is succeed. It definitely plays a huge role, but even if Google charged a $10 license like Microsoft is doing now with WP7, Android would've still succeeded. In this case it's actually WP7 that is more like Linux - opportunity wise - because WP7 is the one coming into the market after Android is well entrenched.
philwelch 16y ago
Being free is a big reason, in the same way that cheap OEM licenses are Windows' way of having the biggest market share. Free's not the killer, being cheap enough to be widely available is. Even if Macs or iPhones are the better product, Windows and Android both have nearly every hardware maker in the market selling it (and, in Android's case, on every network), making it a more convenient and marketable option. AT&T being a crappy network is analogous to AutoCAD and games only being available on Windows; a way to leverage wide availability into concrete advantages for some segments, despite having a worse product to begin with.
Estragon 16y ago
The reason linux has never taken off on the desktop is the lock-in from MS propietary formats. There is no such lock in for mobile devices.
markfenton 16y ago
I've no figures to back it up, but my initial thought is that the simple cost of the OS isn't the deciding factor. For a PC people expect the Windows name, to see Windows on it, and for all their Windows software to work. That leaves using Linux as an unseen cost to the supplier. For a phone most people probably don't see an OS (with the probable exception of Apple), and don't have legacy software. They just see a phone they want that does shiny things. Therefore the OS chosen might not have such a hidden cost making the fact that Android is free a bigger advantage.
MichaelMace 16y ago
Windows was already established as the desktop OS standard before Linux became prominent. Windows had a huge base of apps and massive network effects. Saving money on the cost of the OS was not enough of an advantage to make most users switch away from Windows. Mobile is very different. There is no single established OS standard, and in fact most phone buyers don't even know what the OS is in their phone (I am talking about average users, not the folks who are reading this comment). Cellphone companies will sweat blood in order to cut ten cents out of the parts cost of a phone. Eliminating ten dollars in cost is a huge deal to them. Add to that the marketing power of the Google brand, and Android looked very attractive to mobile phone manufacturers when compared to Windows Mobile and Symbian, which were the other main choices at the time.
rythie 16y ago
Linux hasn't managed to take off because for most people it requires changing virtually every application they use to a different one. OSX is able to make inroads because several key applications such as Microsoft Office, Adobe's products, iTunes etc. also work on Macs. Mobile phones didn't really have 3rd party apps (they weren't popular) until they iPhone and people were switching brands pretty often anyway.

by timtadh 16y ago

semanticist 16y ago

I think what has helped Android's uptake is that it's freely alterable without having to ask someone's permission. Networks and handset manufacturers can use Android as a base and push whatever features they like without having an Apple or RIM complaining. A major part of making it freely alterable is that the manufacturer/network can make it locked down to the end-user, even if Google doesn't mind people having root on their handset the networks hate it and the networks are the handset manufacturer's customers, not end-users. I think that's why most comparisons to the desktop PC market break down for me: Dell and Apple's PC/Mac customers are almost always the end-user of their device (corporate sales excepted), so the driving force behind what goes into those products is very different. The network is the one paying the handset manufacturer, so phones are designed to meet the needs of the network. Apple and RIM have done some good work to try and change this by taking ownership of the relationship with the end-user and reducing the network to a mere carrier of data. Android is pretty much the exact opposite: by being free it becomes 'free to suit the networks' and 'free to make it match network branding'. That's not to say that Android is bad or otherwise technically lesser than BB or iOS, but I'm pretty certain that it's free availability was a huge factor in the uptake from multiple manufacturers.

mattparcher 16y ago

Windows vs. Mac is now Android vs. iPhone. Microsoft slacked off, and lost its place to the equally-ambitious Google. Desktop Linux never had a Google to push its adoption.

blocke 16y ago
Yep. Though I think Linux can wipe the tears from its eyes. It can be consoled by the fact its kernel and much of its userspace will be in everything without a Microsoft or Apple logo on it for years to come.
ericflo 16y ago
Google Chrome OS
- mishmash 16y ago
  Should Chrome OS really count as a desktop OS, considering it doesn't even use a desktop metaphor?

ergo98 16y ago

The "Android is free" bit is remarkably foolhardy, so it is surprising that it appears in so many articles. I've heard that Microsoft charges somewhere in the range of $10 / unit for Windows Mobile, generally for an image that you quite literally set some flags and you have your gold copy (at least pre Windows Mobile 7, as my experience was with the CE variants). For Android the individual handset makers take on tremendous responsibility, not to mention that they often - for reasons of differentiation - decide to apply a generous layer of spakle on top. That doesn't come for free. Android isn't and has never been free.

Someone 16y ago
It think is even more true than you indicate. http://source.android.com/faqs.html http://source.android.com/faqs.html says: Devices that are properly compatible can seek approval to use the Android trademark. ... Android Market is only licensed to handset manufacturers shipping devices. ... The Google apps for Android, such as YouTube, Google Maps and Navigation, Gmail, and so on are Google properties that are not part of Android, and are licensed separately. I cannot find proof of it, but I would guess neither of these are free.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

nextparadigms 16y ago

The main reason why Android is winning is because they were the first quality (iOS like) multi-manufacturer OS that was pushed by a big company that most people love and got a lot of momentum. I don't think being free or open-source was the main reason Android is succeed. It definitely plays a huge role, but even if Google charged a $10 license like Microsoft is doing now with WP7, Android would've still succeeded. In this case it's actually WP7 that is more like Linux - opportunity wise - because WP7 is the one coming into the market after Android is well entrenched.

philwelch 16y ago

Being free is a big reason, in the same way that cheap OEM licenses are Windows' way of having the biggest market share. Free's not the killer, being cheap enough to be widely available is. Even if Macs or iPhones are the better product, Windows and Android both have nearly every hardware maker in the market selling it (and, in Android's case, on every network), making it a more convenient and marketable option. AT&T being a crappy network is analogous to AutoCAD and games only being available on Windows; a way to leverage wide availability into concrete advantages for some segments, despite having a worse product to begin with.

Estragon 16y ago

The reason linux has never taken off on the desktop is the lock-in from MS propietary formats. There is no such lock in for mobile devices.

markfenton 16y ago

I've no figures to back it up, but my initial thought is that the simple cost of the OS isn't the deciding factor. For a PC people expect the Windows name, to see Windows on it, and for all their Windows software to work. That leaves using Linux as an unseen cost to the supplier. For a phone most people probably don't see an OS (with the probable exception of Apple), and don't have legacy software. They just see a phone they want that does shiny things. Therefore the OS chosen might not have such a hidden cost making the fact that Android is free a bigger advantage.

MichaelMace 16y ago

Windows was already established as the desktop OS standard before Linux became prominent. Windows had a huge base of apps and massive network effects. Saving money on the cost of the OS was not enough of an advantage to make most users switch away from Windows. Mobile is very different. There is no single established OS standard, and in fact most phone buyers don't even know what the OS is in their phone (I am talking about average users, not the folks who are reading this comment). Cellphone companies will sweat blood in order to cut ten cents out of the parts cost of a phone. Eliminating ten dollars in cost is a huge deal to them. Add to that the marketing power of the Google brand, and Android looked very attractive to mobile phone manufacturers when compared to Windows Mobile and Symbian, which were the other main choices at the time.

rythie 16y ago

Linux hasn't managed to take off because for most people it requires changing virtually every application they use to a different one. OSX is able to make inroads because several key applications such as Microsoft Office, Adobe's products, iTunes etc. also work on Macs. Mobile phones didn't really have 3rd party apps (they weren't popular) until they iPhone and people were switching brands pretty often anyway.