3 ms·

Probably not as long as those two have some of the most profitable companies in the world behind them. We might get one of them pushing an replacement (e.g. Fu

Probably not as long as those two have some of the most profitable companies in the world behind them. We might get one of them pushing an replacement (e.g. Fuchsia), but competing against either of them when they've got the resources at their disposal they do currently seems destined for failure. At best, we might see an open source contender gain some traction, but there's not really the same lineage to draw on there either. Linux at least had a few decades of Unix software and UI (including text consoles) going for it. An open source competitor to iOS or Android will either be copying what they do, or making it up as it goes along, which is unlikely to yield major advantages they haven't already taken advantage of, IMO.

Razengan 7y ago
> but competing against either of them when they've got the resources at their disposal they do currently seems destined for failure. The same was said for anyone versus IBM, then anyone versus Microsoft for almost 2 decades after that. Each time a new challenge was able to enter and stay in the fray, it was by capitalizing on a paradigm shift; mainframes -> home computers -> smartphones.. I think the next frontier may be ubiquitous, always-on AR/VR. If a new company makes that happen before Apple or Google do, they might have a chance.
- kbenson 7y ago
  That's a good point about AR. Then again, Google and Apple have been pretty active in pursuing these areas, going as far as to now include dedicated hardware to help with much of the AI/ML stuff required to do that well, and they both have enough money to buy almost any company that comes out with a great showing in that area. If we got some dark horse contender that wasn't taken as serious for long enough to let it gain an advantage and/or was established or large enough that there wouldn't be a lot of pressure to sell, maybe. Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft are the current contenders for that in my mind based on that criteria (with Microsoft actually aggressively pursuing it). Any other company that makes a good showing is likely going to be someone else's next meal.

Razengan 7y ago

> but competing against either of them when they've got the resources at their disposal they do currently seems destined for failure. The same was said for anyone versus IBM, then anyone versus Microsoft for almost 2 decades after that. Each time a new challenge was able to enter and stay in the fray, it was by capitalizing on a paradigm shift; mainframes -> home computers -> smartphones.. I think the next frontier may be ubiquitous, always-on AR/VR. If a new company makes that happen before Apple or Google do, they might have a chance.

kbenson 7y ago
That's a good point about AR. Then again, Google and Apple have been pretty active in pursuing these areas, going as far as to now include dedicated hardware to help with much of the AI/ML stuff required to do that well, and they both have enough money to buy almost any company that comes out with a great showing in that area. If we got some dark horse contender that wasn't taken as serious for long enough to let it gain an advantage and/or was established or large enough that there wouldn't be a lot of pressure to sell, maybe. Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft are the current contenders for that in my mind based on that criteria (with Microsoft actually aggressively pursuing it). Any other company that makes a good showing is likely going to be someone else's next meal.