6 ms·

Android Again

21 points by brett 18y ago

volida 18y ago
i don't get it Symbian has a 70% of the market. Why is Android suddenly so important? sorry but as much I like Google I don't want them running the O/S on my phone.
- wvenable 18y ago
  Symbian is hell on developers. It is a platform, but it's not really used/marketed as a platform.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Right. But they do seem to be trying to move in that direction somewhat. I'd consider them Android's greatest rival.
  - shimi 18y ago
    S60 is a platform, Symbian is an OS And you're right about the development, its hell!!!! I just want to add, the J60 isn't as good as the Android's Java environment (not even close), and it carries the penalty of the J2ME slogan write once test everywhere (to the point where different open S60 devices will behave differently) Symbian week point is its development environment, I imagine they will have to respond in that front in the next versions.
axod 18y ago
The iPhone has the best browser available for a smartphone... and if you have a browser you can do pretty much anything. What is the lure going to be for people to stop moving to webapps, and suddenly embrace an open platform and installable apps? The web, through a browser, is the best open platform IMHO
- ashu 18y ago
  What is the lure going to be for people to stop moving to webapps, and suddenly embrace an open platform and installable apps? The fact that internet connectivity on a desktop vs. on your mobile device is different by an order of magnitude. When you get ubiquitous and fast internet on the mobile device (not some bizarre spotty coverage), then things will change. Maybe Europe is ahead in regards to that, but in the US, I don't see that happening very soon. Edit: oh, and also the processor speeds. So, basically I will bet on webapps for mobile after 3-4 years. Until then, at least, installable apps will work better. Another Edit: perhaps, when something like Google Gears is everywhere, it might change. But offline support - both for code and data - is kind of essential.
  - axod 18y ago
    Europe is way way ahead so perhaps that is where the difference lies. I don't know about processor speed, I can see some intensive 3d special effect games needing native, but for puzzle games, or most 'apps' javascript in a browser is pretty much there.
  - paulgb 18y ago
    "Another Edit: perhaps, when something like Google Gears is everywhere, it might change. But offline support - both for code and data - is kind of essential." HTML 5 includes a storage API, including a SQL database. Apparently the iPhone already has it, and any browser based on WebKit (Nokia, Android?) will likely have it in the not too distant future.
- michaelneale 18y ago
  well given android also uses webkit, even with the option of installable apps, this will only help web apps if it takes off - as the lowest cost way to target a mobile app for both android and iphone is a webkit compatible web app.
  - shimi 18y ago
    I must add that the S60 (Mostly Nokia's Symbian devices) are using webkit as well
    - michaelneale 18y ago
      I think the blackberry will be shortly as well.
      - paulgb 18y ago
        Is that just a hunch? I'd be excited to see WebKit on the BlackBerry as well, but I haven't heard anything about it.
        michaelneale 18y ago
        I was told by someone who should know, although I have been too lazy to check up (its probably publicly available). It makes sense, webkit is getting so much work for mobile from google and apple and others, why not.
  - axod 18y ago
    Don't forget the tabs, zoom, text entry, scrolling etc that makes Safari on the iphone so easy. As long as android has all that, it could be good :)
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      They'd be nuts to not just copy it. iPhone's zooming is pretty awesome.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  The popularity of native apps on the iPhone itself is a pretty strong argument as to why. Phones have all sorts of features that can't be accessed by browsers. GPS, Camera, Bluetooth, who knows what else in 5 years. Lots of stuff benefits from integration with the OS.
biohacker42 18y ago
I don't think you can generalize the PC's lead over Mac to say that Android will eventually overtake. First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market leader in certain market segments. Those markets have always been dominated by Mac. The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you say the same about cellphones? It seems to me that cellphones are much more narrowly defined and used. Some are fashion accessories, some like the Blackberry are like a communication utility. But none are a generic computing device, and I don't think they'll ever be. So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny thingy. You could even say that with Vista's DRM, even the PC is heading that way, where the open platform will eventually be relegated to a niche enthusiast market. People like us will pay a premium to get a PC as open as one anyone can by today.
- ashu 18y ago
  But none are a generic computing device, and I don't think they'll ever be Matt's central assumption is that they will become generic computing devices and I concur. Why do you think they won't ever be generic computing devices? I think of my iPhone as pretty generic and "capable" of doing a lot of things. I had a dumb phone-only-phone a year ago.
  - biohacker42 18y ago
    Mostly I think the UI has much less bandwidth then something like a laptop. Why I say UI, I don't mean the iPhone, or any one phone, but any device small enough to fit into one hand. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do think ease of use will be more of a selling point then power and capability.
    - SwellJoe 18y ago
      Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do think ease of use will be more of a selling point then power and capability. I think you're wrong, but not because the tradeoff will be "ease of use" vs. "power and capability". Power and capability are coming to mobile devices, both from Apple and from the market at large, and people will use that power and capability. It won't matter whether you ("you" being a placeholder for pretty much everybody in the developed world) think you need more apps running on your phone--you will have them, and you will like them, and you will use them more and more in place of your desktop or laptop machine. This is the way it will be in a couple years time, and you can quote me on that. You're coming to the conclusions you are (that the iPhone will somehow become the leading mobile device--note that I didn't say it would maintain a leadership position, because it has never had a leadership position...it has 25% of the smart phone market, but that's a small niche of the whole mobile market) because you're framing the question wrong. You're assuming there are huge tradeoffs: Ease of use with the apps that Apple says you can have vs. hard to use, ugly, but with super jet powered applications that allow you to rule the world while sitting on the toilet. The reality will be more like how the PC industry shook out (I'm pretty darned sure, anyway): Good enough ease of use, good enough products, nice enough looking, and dramatically cheaper and more powerful than the Apple counterpart. When every phone is a smart phone, the smart phone market will look dramatically different than it does today. It'll look a lot more like the regular mobile phone market (which is to say, a hodgepodge of products from a hodgepodge of manufacturers--but Android has a good chance at being a leading OS on those products).
wired247 18y ago
The reason that Microsoft/Windows has such a dominant market share has nothing to do with how 'open' the PC market is—it is due to the historical predominance of Microsoft DOS which is related to the fact that IBM was the first company that sold 'Personal' Computers into businesses. In the 1970's virtually no individuals had computers of their own, and the vast majority of people who had used a computer were exposed to it at work. As businesses purchased IBM PCs instead of terminals for large IBM mainframes or minis, more and more people were exposed to computers. Apple was selling computers into a very different market—they were serving computer 'enthusiasts', in the 1970's that was a very limited group akin to those people who build thier own sailboats or airplanes. IBM was exposing a much larger and more homogenous group of people to computers—people with jobs ;-) As computers became more mainstream over the years there were just more people who had used and were familiar with 'PCs' running MS-DOS, which eventually transitioned into Windows. The Microsoft piece of the personal-computer market has ALWAYS been bigger in the modern era, because it was the easy choice—people used it at work, bought it for home, and were comfortable recommending the same approach for their friends and co-workers. Mobile devices such as smartphones are VERY 'personal'. With the possible exception of the BlackBerry, which will have been imposed on a lot of people through their jobs (as the PC/MS combo was in the 70's and 80's) people are free to choose whatever they want for their device. The majority of the market will not choose a smartphone based on whether or not the OS is 'open' or 'closed'—they will very likely not understand the distinction. Apple understands that users will not be interested in apportioning blame between the hardware manufacturer, the OS provider and the applications developers. AT&T probably understands this too, and so will other carriers. If/when Android develops any of the little issues that are very common with applications written for other 'open' platforms, those issues will reflect poorly on all parties involved. The public at large will not understand and accept the compromises in applications that those of us in the "blogosphere" take for granted They will not keep coming back to try an application through 25 "point" releases until it is finally/potentially better and more robust than any 'closed-OS' alternative - they will give up on it. Customers will choose smartphones based on how USABLE they are, how many useful and easy-to-use features they have, how reliable they are, and how 'cool' they are. Unfortunately, Android and any other completely 'open' OS is likely to have more buggy applications and security issues than a semi-monitored 'closed' system like the iPhone OS. I do not think Android will ever be a major player in the smartphone space unless/until they modify their definition of 'open' to allow some method for 'vetting' of applications.
ReverendBayes 18y ago
Google could end this now with a nationwide wimax buildout. Build a skype-like voice protocol on the android stack, open source a reference hardware design, and let programmers planetwide innovate on the platform. Would fell the iphone and every other carrier within a year or two.
- netcan 18y ago
  Sure?
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Google failed to win the broadcast spectrum to build out anything. It's not as simple as just deciding to put up some towers.
kapitti 18y ago
It's comments like this: "And there’s the Shuffle, which I’m not really sure if anyone ever purchases, but maybe it’s just for people who are too poor to buy the Nano and only own 3 CDs because most of their collection is still on 8-track." That make me dislike Matt - there's just something about the tone of that statement.

21 points by brett 18y ago

i don't get it Symbian has a 70% of the market. Why is Android suddenly so important? sorry but as much I like Google I don't want them running the O/S on my phone.

wvenable 18y ago
Symbian is hell on developers. It is a platform, but it's not really used/marketed as a platform.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Right. But they do seem to be trying to move in that direction somewhat. I'd consider them Android's greatest rival.
- shimi 18y ago
  S60 is a platform, Symbian is an OS And you're right about the development, its hell!!!! I just want to add, the J60 isn't as good as the Android's Java environment (not even close), and it carries the penalty of the J2ME slogan write once test everywhere (to the point where different open S60 devices will behave differently) Symbian week point is its development environment, I imagine they will have to respond in that front in the next versions.

axod 18y ago

The iPhone has the best browser available for a smartphone... and if you have a browser you can do pretty much anything. What is the lure going to be for people to stop moving to webapps, and suddenly embrace an open platform and installable apps? The web, through a browser, is the best open platform IMHO

ashu 18y ago
What is the lure going to be for people to stop moving to webapps, and suddenly embrace an open platform and installable apps? The fact that internet connectivity on a desktop vs. on your mobile device is different by an order of magnitude. When you get ubiquitous and fast internet on the mobile device (not some bizarre spotty coverage), then things will change. Maybe Europe is ahead in regards to that, but in the US, I don't see that happening very soon. Edit: oh, and also the processor speeds. So, basically I will bet on webapps for mobile after 3-4 years. Until then, at least, installable apps will work better. Another Edit: perhaps, when something like Google Gears is everywhere, it might change. But offline support - both for code and data - is kind of essential.
- axod 18y ago
  Europe is way way ahead so perhaps that is where the difference lies. I don't know about processor speed, I can see some intensive 3d special effect games needing native, but for puzzle games, or most 'apps' javascript in a browser is pretty much there.
- paulgb 18y ago
  "Another Edit: perhaps, when something like Google Gears is everywhere, it might change. But offline support - both for code and data - is kind of essential." HTML 5 includes a storage API, including a SQL database. Apparently the iPhone already has it, and any browser based on WebKit (Nokia, Android?) will likely have it in the not too distant future.
michaelneale 18y ago
well given android also uses webkit, even with the option of installable apps, this will only help web apps if it takes off - as the lowest cost way to target a mobile app for both android and iphone is a webkit compatible web app.
- shimi 18y ago
  I must add that the S60 (Mostly Nokia's Symbian devices) are using webkit as well
  - michaelneale 18y ago
    I think the blackberry will be shortly as well.
    - paulgb 18y ago
      Is that just a hunch? I'd be excited to see WebKit on the BlackBerry as well, but I haven't heard anything about it.
      - michaelneale 18y ago
        I was told by someone who should know, although I have been too lazy to check up (its probably publicly available). It makes sense, webkit is getting so much work for mobile from google and apple and others, why not.
- axod 18y ago
  Don't forget the tabs, zoom, text entry, scrolling etc that makes Safari on the iphone so easy. As long as android has all that, it could be good :)
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    They'd be nuts to not just copy it. iPhone's zooming is pretty awesome.
mattmaroon 18y ago
The popularity of native apps on the iPhone itself is a pretty strong argument as to why. Phones have all sorts of features that can't be accessed by browsers. GPS, Camera, Bluetooth, who knows what else in 5 years. Lots of stuff benefits from integration with the OS.

biohacker42 18y ago

I don't think you can generalize the PC's lead over Mac to say that Android will eventually overtake. First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market leader in certain market segments. Those markets have always been dominated by Mac. The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you say the same about cellphones? It seems to me that cellphones are much more narrowly defined and used. Some are fashion accessories, some like the Blackberry are like a communication utility. But none are a generic computing device, and I don't think they'll ever be. So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny thingy. You could even say that with Vista's DRM, even the PC is heading that way, where the open platform will eventually be relegated to a niche enthusiast market. People like us will pay a premium to get a PC as open as one anyone can by today.

ashu 18y ago
But none are a generic computing device, and I don't think they'll ever be Matt's central assumption is that they will become generic computing devices and I concur. Why do you think they won't ever be generic computing devices? I think of my iPhone as pretty generic and "capable" of doing a lot of things. I had a dumb phone-only-phone a year ago.
- biohacker42 18y ago
  Mostly I think the UI has much less bandwidth then something like a laptop. Why I say UI, I don't mean the iPhone, or any one phone, but any device small enough to fit into one hand. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do think ease of use will be more of a selling point then power and capability.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do think ease of use will be more of a selling point then power and capability. I think you're wrong, but not because the tradeoff will be "ease of use" vs. "power and capability". Power and capability are coming to mobile devices, both from Apple and from the market at large, and people will use that power and capability. It won't matter whether you ("you" being a placeholder for pretty much everybody in the developed world) think you need more apps running on your phone--you will have them, and you will like them, and you will use them more and more in place of your desktop or laptop machine. This is the way it will be in a couple years time, and you can quote me on that. You're coming to the conclusions you are (that the iPhone will somehow become the leading mobile device--note that I didn't say it would maintain a leadership position, because it has never had a leadership position...it has 25% of the smart phone market, but that's a small niche of the whole mobile market) because you're framing the question wrong. You're assuming there are huge tradeoffs: Ease of use with the apps that Apple says you can have vs. hard to use, ugly, but with super jet powered applications that allow you to rule the world while sitting on the toilet. The reality will be more like how the PC industry shook out (I'm pretty darned sure, anyway): Good enough ease of use, good enough products, nice enough looking, and dramatically cheaper and more powerful than the Apple counterpart. When every phone is a smart phone, the smart phone market will look dramatically different than it does today. It'll look a lot more like the regular mobile phone market (which is to say, a hodgepodge of products from a hodgepodge of manufacturers--but Android has a good chance at being a leading OS on those products).

wired247 18y ago

The reason that Microsoft/Windows has such a dominant market share has nothing to do with how 'open' the PC market is—it is due to the historical predominance of Microsoft DOS which is related to the fact that IBM was the first company that sold 'Personal' Computers into businesses. In the 1970's virtually no individuals had computers of their own, and the vast majority of people who had used a computer were exposed to it at work. As businesses purchased IBM PCs instead of terminals for large IBM mainframes or minis, more and more people were exposed to computers. Apple was selling computers into a very different market—they were serving computer 'enthusiasts', in the 1970's that was a very limited group akin to those people who build thier own sailboats or airplanes. IBM was exposing a much larger and more homogenous group of people to computers—people with jobs ;-) As computers became more mainstream over the years there were just more people who had used and were familiar with 'PCs' running MS-DOS, which eventually transitioned into Windows. The Microsoft piece of the personal-computer market has ALWAYS been bigger in the modern era, because it was the easy choice—people used it at work, bought it for home, and were comfortable recommending the same approach for their friends and co-workers. Mobile devices such as smartphones are VERY 'personal'. With the possible exception of the BlackBerry, which will have been imposed on a lot of people through their jobs (as the PC/MS combo was in the 70's and 80's) people are free to choose whatever they want for their device. The majority of the market will not choose a smartphone based on whether or not the OS is 'open' or 'closed'—they will very likely not understand the distinction. Apple understands that users will not be interested in apportioning blame between the hardware manufacturer, the OS provider and the applications developers. AT&T probably understands this too, and so will other carriers. If/when Android develops any of the little issues that are very common with applications written for other 'open' platforms, those issues will reflect poorly on all parties involved. The public at large will not understand and accept the compromises in applications that those of us in the "blogosphere" take for granted They will not keep coming back to try an application through 25 "point" releases until it is finally/potentially better and more robust than any 'closed-OS' alternative - they will give up on it. Customers will choose smartphones based on how USABLE they are, how many useful and easy-to-use features they have, how reliable they are, and how 'cool' they are. Unfortunately, Android and any other completely 'open' OS is likely to have more buggy applications and security issues than a semi-monitored 'closed' system like the iPhone OS. I do not think Android will ever be a major player in the smartphone space unless/until they modify their definition of 'open' to allow some method for 'vetting' of applications.

ReverendBayes 18y ago

Google could end this now with a nationwide wimax buildout. Build a skype-like voice protocol on the android stack, open source a reference hardware design, and let programmers planetwide innovate on the platform. Would fell the iphone and every other carrier within a year or two.

netcan 18y ago
Sure?
mattmaroon 18y ago
Google failed to win the broadcast spectrum to build out anything. It's not as simple as just deciding to put up some towers.

kapitti 18y ago

It's comments like this: "And there’s the Shuffle, which I’m not really sure if anyone ever purchases, but maybe it’s just for people who are too poor to buy the Nano and only own 3 CDs because most of their collection is still on 8-track." That make me dislike Matt - there's just something about the tone of that statement.