4 ms·

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

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).
SwellJoe 18y ago
First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market leader in certain market segments. If you're willing to play the "in this market segment" game, you can make anybody a winner. OpenBSD totally has a lock on the "paranoid dudes in their mom's basement who think Debian is too damned corporate" market segment. The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you say the same about cellphones? I think you can. "A generic mobile device". There, I said it. The PC, in hindsight, I think was obviously a case of fully proprietary (Apple) vs. mostly open (the PC, with DOS and later Windows). One can easily say, "It's the applications!" And you'd be right...but why were there more apps for PC than Mac? Bigger market, sure. But, if Apple could stop people from making applications for the Mac, and Microsoft couldn't, I know which OS I'd be developing for. And that's the situation here. Apple are basically being bastards to their customers and their developers, and because Apple products are really attractive, extremely well-executed, and generally good and useful, people haven't immediately noticed what a bastard Apple is being about the whole thing. But, I think Matt's right. People will notice that Apple is treating them like crap, with abusive contracts, abusive terms for distribution of applications, and anti-competitive practices with regard to who gets to make and sell apps for the iPhone. It's already happening, and Apple will either wise up, or lose out. 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. Nobody is saying that Microsoft is open, or good for consumers. At least, I didn't take Matt's post to indicate that at all. He merely used the early PC vs. Mac war as an interesting historical precedent for what's going to play out in the mobile market and for the very same reasons: Cost, availability of apps, and control (i.e. who controls your device: you, or the manufacturer?). I think the comparisons are pretty obvious and pretty difficult to argue against. The current behavior and direction of Microsoft (and its own historical abusive behavior) is irrelevant. Nobody is going to argue that the PC was a less open platform than the Mac in the 80s and 90s, and changes in the landscape since then don't alter history. So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny thingy. I think it'll be dominated by the cheapest thing that does what people want, just like PCs. It is becoming a commodity...as most mass-manufactured goods do.
- ashu 18y ago
  It continually amazes me why people have such intense hatred of Apple. At least, you give credit, but still: "bastards"? Abusive contracts: who knows who forced an abusive contract for the phone? I agree with you that cheaper, working things will beat the crap out of the iPhone, but still: "bastards"? What did they do to you, man?

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).

SwellJoe 18y ago

First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market leader in certain market segments. If you're willing to play the "in this market segment" game, you can make anybody a winner. OpenBSD totally has a lock on the "paranoid dudes in their mom's basement who think Debian is too damned corporate" market segment. The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you say the same about cellphones? I think you can. "A generic mobile device". There, I said it. The PC, in hindsight, I think was obviously a case of fully proprietary (Apple) vs. mostly open (the PC, with DOS and later Windows). One can easily say, "It's the applications!" And you'd be right...but why were there more apps for PC than Mac? Bigger market, sure. But, if Apple could stop people from making applications for the Mac, and Microsoft couldn't, I know which OS I'd be developing for. And that's the situation here. Apple are basically being bastards to their customers and their developers, and because Apple products are really attractive, extremely well-executed, and generally good and useful, people haven't immediately noticed what a bastard Apple is being about the whole thing. But, I think Matt's right. People will notice that Apple is treating them like crap, with abusive contracts, abusive terms for distribution of applications, and anti-competitive practices with regard to who gets to make and sell apps for the iPhone. It's already happening, and Apple will either wise up, or lose out. 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. Nobody is saying that Microsoft is open, or good for consumers. At least, I didn't take Matt's post to indicate that at all. He merely used the early PC vs. Mac war as an interesting historical precedent for what's going to play out in the mobile market and for the very same reasons: Cost, availability of apps, and control (i.e. who controls your device: you, or the manufacturer?). I think the comparisons are pretty obvious and pretty difficult to argue against. The current behavior and direction of Microsoft (and its own historical abusive behavior) is irrelevant. Nobody is going to argue that the PC was a less open platform than the Mac in the 80s and 90s, and changes in the landscape since then don't alter history. So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny thingy. I think it'll be dominated by the cheapest thing that does what people want, just like PCs. It is becoming a commodity...as most mass-manufactured goods do.

ashu 18y ago
It continually amazes me why people have such intense hatred of Apple. At least, you give credit, but still: "bastards"? Abusive contracts: who knows who forced an abusive contract for the phone? I agree with you that cheaper, working things will beat the crap out of the iPhone, but still: "bastards"? What did they do to you, man?