3 ms·
My impression of your closing paragraph is that you may be looking a bit too hard for that sentiment – I've seen it and been annoyed by it too, but I don't see
by mortenjorck 16y ago
My impression of your closing paragraph is that you may be looking a bit too hard for that sentiment – I've seen it and been annoyed by it too, but I don't see it in Siegler's post. If anything, it's the opposite, equally annoying sentiment that the game is over because Android's destiny is now manifest. The game is far from over, though, and I don't see anyone credibly claiming otherwise.
- samstokes 16y agoI read Siegler's post as basically an attempt by him to reconcile those two annoying sentiments, both of which I detected in the text. They both share the misconceptions that this is a two-horse race, and that "winning" is meaningful in a market which (due to the inertia caused by factors like carrier behaviour) takes years to evolve. One interesting point Siegler didn't make is that Google is making some modest strides toward weakening the carriers' grip on the handset market (e.g. selling Nexus One unlocked themselves, and Nexus S unlocked through vendors). Sure, they're niche devices and the Nexus One direct sales model didn't work out that well, but they're testing the water. I'm pretty sure their goal there is to increase general consumer acceptance of buying unlocked, carrier-untouched phones. And that helps every smartphone maker, perhaps especially Apple (who probably stand the best chance of selling large numbers of $600 handsets without carrier subsidy). Apple themselves could have made this play, by offering (and promoting) the iPhone unlocked at launch (or since), but they chose instead to work with the carriers (a reasonable decision to maximise short-term success).