5 ms·

As Android hits 75% market share, can anyone tell me why this is not Mac vs PC?

32 points by ForFreedom 14y ago

Achshar 14y ago
It is not Mac v/s PC all over again because android can also be shipped without google. Windows cannot be shipped without Microsoft. It is also not mac v/s PC because a rival had a considerable share of revenue stream of android. (Much like if linux had a revenue portion of windows) And android's owner has different plans for earning money off of android. Mostly by search traffic and store sales and negligible for licensing.
- mtgx 14y ago
  You can talk about those differences, and of course it's not a 100% analogy, but I think his main point was about the market share and the ecosystem. If Android ends up with 3 billion users in 2015, and iOS only 1 billion, as predicted (also with the whole of Windows at 1.5 billion users, from 1.3 bn now), I expect most developers will be wanting to develop for Android first by then, and it should be their #1 source for income, too, simply through sheer numbers of users.
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    "I expect most developers will be wanting to develop for Android first by then" I doubt it: - Owners of Android handsets on average have lower disposable income than owners of iOS devices. On top of that, a lot of Android phones are in developing countries. - Most Android handsets run an old version of the OS and will never be updated, thus limiting the choice of APIs that developers can use. - Many Android handsets are used as dumbphones, their owners will never download apps. - There is not one main app marketplace for Android, and not all Android users can use the same marketplaces. - Few Google Play accounts have credit cards linked to them. Amazon is in a much better position, but Apple still has more credit cards on file. - Google makes developers pay for chargebacks.
    - maxdeliso 14y ago
      Having done corporate grade mobile work, there's no question of which platform is easier to develop for. On Android, not only do you have to simultaneously target in some cases four or five different API levels, you also have to hit several combinations of screen dimensions and resolutions. The documentation for Android is also lacking in comparison to the iOS docs. The android SDK, though comprehensive and generally very high quality, suffers from the same complexity problems arising from issues related to fragmentation. Remember though, most of the developers who are doing work that actually matters on mobile aren't doing it because they want do, they're doing it because a corporate strategist thought it would be profitable use of their time.
      - cageface 14y ago
        I haven't found this to be the case at all. With the compat libs you can pretty easily target 2.3 and 4.x. And the dynamic layout issues are more than offset by the much greater flexibility of Android's layout managers. An iOS app I'm working on right now has been a nightmare in comparison because we had to port our layouts to the i5 form factor but can't require iOS 6 just to get autologous. Apple really blew that transition.
        maxdeliso 14y ago
        Still: how many currently deployed devices running iOS are you going to be QAing that application on? Two, maybe Three? How many versions of iOS are you going to be seeing on those devices? One or two most likely, iPhone users tend to upgrade with their software with much more conformity and faster. Compare that to Androids upwards of fifteen (and growing) widespread devices, and a heinous amount of API levels in the wild. That's one of the more objective factors which make Android easier. Also, you can say that the API level differences don't matter because they are hidden by compatibility libraries like The Support Package, but the truth is that those are just the newer APIs re-implemented against the old interfaces. You pay for that extra abstraction with wasted cycles and bloat, and it's an ugly solution. Even still, those libraries aren't perfect: there have been subtle bugs or incompatibilities introduced by their use which are notoriously hard to find. Finally, even if the newer APIs are present on the device, The Support Library will still be used (last I checked, though I think they are working on this). Less objectively, it's a matter of preference. Some people just prefer objective C to a JVM compilable language.
d4nt 14y ago
The difference this time is that there are very workable ways in which developers can target both platforms i.e. web/HTML5, and some other frameworks. Plus there's usually more paying customers in the iOS world so going "Native Android first" is not the obvious strategy that "Native Windows first" was.
- maxdeliso 14y ago
  Although that's true in principle it's a little idealized: HTML5 development on mobile is still a little half baked and impractical. You only have to look at Facebook's massive abandonment (at least temporarily) of that platform in favor of the native API. The whole point of the article is that while there are more paying customers in the iOS world NOW, it's unlikely that the situation will continue to be true given the current trends.
goldfeld 14y ago
Don't forget little FirefoxOS, our Linux in the making. Let's hope this time it's sexy and mainstream from the start. That'd be an interesting scenario.
d4nt 14y ago
The difference this time is that there are very workable ways in which developers can target both platforms i.e. web/HTML5, and some other frameworks. Plus there's usually more paying customers in the iOS world so going "Native Android first" is not the obvious strategy that "Native Windows first" was.
davidlumley 14y ago
More shipment based speculation with little regard to actual sales. For me, the biggest difference between Mac vs PC, and iOS vs Android is that Mac and PC are mostly comparable. iOS and some Android phone/tablets are comparable but a large majority of cheap Android phones are not in the same market as iOS devices, and for me - not comparable.
oneandoneis2 14y ago
Possibly the fact that the creator(s) of Android don't (directly) make any money out of the sales? Every Apple phone sold = Money for Apple Every Android phone != Money for Google That's not to say that Apple shouldn't be worried, but unlike in the Mac vs. PC situation, their competition isn't a single company making profit off every unit sold. It's a mass of semi-co-operative, semi-competitive groups; many of which are helping themselves to the free Android software without giving anything back to the people who made it. That's a big difference.
- dewiz 14y ago
  just wondering, is Android free also for smartphones' makers Samsung, HTC etc ?
  - dan1234 14y ago
    Most Android manufacturers pay a per unit fee to Microsoft due to patent licensing, so I wouldn't say it was free.
  - Someone 14y ago
    Yes and no. The OS is free, using the 'Android' name is not free as in speech, but (I think) free as in beer, as it does require compliance with Google's Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Lice... Shipping Google's applications (GMail, Maps, Google's store; maybe others) requires a license from Google. That probably is not free as in beer, either, but I find it hard to find definitive statements for that on the web. developer.android.com seems to only target software developers. Also, some technologies used in Android are patented, and require payments to patent holders. So, in practice, Android is not free for smartphone makers.
    - Rastafarian 14y ago
      Full license, including the name, access to Play, all Google apps is between $10 and $20 per device. The license comes with a very good rate for every online search made from an Android phone or tablet.
easyfrag 14y ago
The difference is that there's no comparable 800 pound gorilla controlling the dominant Non-Apple OS that runs on commodity non-Apple hardware. Well I guess there is but adhering to Google's terms are entirely voluntary (see Amazon). Microsoft was far more controlling which helped DOS/Windows develop into a single ubiquitous ecosystem. Google isn't so Android won't.
archgrove 14y ago
I think any answer to this will have to hinge on why, given the sales disparity, app revenue and "usage" metrics (i.e. mobile browsing) is still either in favour of iOS or tied. My personal reasoning is that carriers are pushing low end Android phones as the standard handset you get when you walk in the door and say "I need a phone". These people don't really know what they're getting in terms of an ecosystem, and seem to use very little smart functionality. iPhone users (and "high end" Android users), on the other hand, probably know exactly what they're buying into. These are the users that will determine developer targeting. Two ways I see for Android to decisively win this: either these "low-end" users start to participate in the eco-system, or the rise of low income countries (much of Asia, Africa etc) makes the weight of numbers so far in Android's favour that even with a much lower engagement rate, the money's there. Apple could counter this with "iPhone Nano", I guess, but it would require them to sacrifice a lot of margin. Outside tip: Samsung are becoming the Apple of Android smartphones, selling the preponderance of the high end handsets. Within 18 months, I suspect we'll see them fork Android to differentiate themselves from the "sell at near cost, make it up on ecosystem" strategy that Google's pursuing now with the Nexus (that reduce Samsung to basically a hardware supplier on razor-thin margins). Either that, or they'll use carrier relationships to ensure these cheap, high-end handsets don't ever really get in front of non-geeky consumers.
- kumarm 14y ago
  Samsung is also big on low end devices. In India Samsung pretty much is new Nokia. Samsung is neither low end or high end. They are selling whats suitable strategy for each country and its working damn well.
  - taligent 14y ago
    I've been hearing the same and apparently the most popular Samsung device is the model that looks identical to the iPhone 3GS. I am curious how much of an advantage Android has by allowing pirated apps. In price sensitive markets the cost of apps has to be a key factor. If it is a big factor could be ominous signs for Nokia in particular.
- bad_user 14y ago
recoiledsnake 14y ago
Carriers(at least in the US), for one. Carriers eat the extra cost of the iPhone making it the same $199 as other flagship Android phones. Whereas in the PC market, the price difference between Dell/Compaq/etc. and Apple made all the difference. Also, $199(or the $650 unlocked) is well within reach of a large number of customers nowadays, whereas $3000 in the later 80s was a huge amount(even more so than now because of inflation). In dollar terms, $3000 in 1989 would be $5,598.56 now.
- justinschuh 14y ago
  It amazes me that so few people understand that the carrier subsidy is such a huge part of the iPhone's success. Apple has pulled in obscene profits by making the carriers pay huge subsidies to keep the iPhone's price competitive. And the carriers turn around and amortize that cost over the rest of their customer base. So, the customers that don't own iPhones are the ones really getting screwed because they're paying the same higher rates but not getting the same hardware subsidy.
kgarten 14y ago
I don't think it's Mac vs. PC, as we are talking about eco-systems now. Also their statistic is majorly bogus, they use "units shipped" not sold. Web-traffic and profits show a "slightly" different picture. Edit: got rid off an unnecessary comment.
andrewcooke 14y ago
what does "mac vs pc" mean? i know it was an advertising campaign. i know there was competition between apple and pc manufacturers. but this article seems to assume that the phrase has some clear meaning/implication for the future (and that "it" is happening again). but what is "it"? is it just saying - look, the market is dividing into two brands, one with wider appeal and lower prices, the other aimed more at discretionary spending? if so, what is interesting about that? serious q - i feel i'm completely missing the point here. is the idea that this is dangerous for apple? if so, isn't the counterargument that, historically, apple has managed to adapt and innovate? i mean, it's hardly suffering right now.
- panacea 14y ago
  Fairly sure it refers to the locked down os-and-hardware bundling of Apple, vs. the install Windows on anyone's hardware, back in the day. Microsoft won that battle and Apple barely scraped through. Will Android win this time round in a similar fashion? Apple sells more iPods than Macs.
- netcan 14y ago
  He's referring to the competition between Apple's Mac & MS Dos + Windows in the late 80s to mid-90s. The compressed version of the narrative is: Mac was innovative, brilliant, early but too expensive & without enough applications. Windows was late, copied & sucked but was cheaper (because of commodity hardware) had all the dos apps from the 80s and got gradually better. By 95 the network effects of the developer ecosystem had locked windows in to 20 years of dominance. It also helped that by 95 windows didn't really suck much. The moral of the story is (supposedly) that OS Platforms have one winner. Developers develop for the largest user base and users buy the cheapest platform with the most apps.
Tycho 14y ago
Isn't it obvious? Because phones have completely different use cases to PCs. There's no Microsoft Office effect that renders your smartphone inconvenient due to the small marketshare of its OS.
- Rastafarian 14y ago
  Of course there is, e.g. any government/public funded mobile app will have to be developed on Android first or only.
  - Tycho 14y ago
    But mobile apps are always secondary to websites anyway. I do not think this would rise above occasional minor irritation. Whereas Mac incompatibility was a deal breaker in the 90s. It also helps that Apple has a lot more muscle these days.
ja27 14y ago
It's a little more like MS-DOS clones vs. the Apple II line. The Apple II had an early lead in the personal computer market, especially for businesses. The IBM PC eventually took over, but mostly thanks to third party PCs running licensed MS-DOS. Microsoft never built their own PC to run MS-DOS (or later, Windows) until just now.
beloch 14y ago
Even if OS-wars don't matter as much as they used to, Android vs iOS is shaping up to be an interesting one. Android has taken the lead in features. Every new release of iOS is packed with things that Android has had for years. Android is still lagging behind in polish, and iOS is utterly dominant when it comes to gaming. Google spends more than twice what Apple does on research (that's after Apple bumped up their R&D budget too!). Apple is going to be playing catch-up in terms of features for the foreseeable future. Google has taken some steps to improve their polish, such as project butter, but that bright future is most unevenly distributed. Google's attempts at polish will likely be thwarted by the same thing that scares off game-writers: fragmentation. In the near future, I think Android will take the lead and become the better OS, except for gaming. Google is putting too much effort into polish not to catch up quick (with their premier devices at least) while Apple isn't doing enough to close the feature-gap and is actually falling further behind (e.g. NFC, wireless charging, etc.). If Google ever manages to solve their fragmentation woes that'll basically be it for the iPhone. Windows 8 phones are, of course, a bit of a dark horse. WM8 appears to be a nice mobile OS that is going to come on some very nice hardware. It might be WM7 all over again, or it might actually catch on. I'd love to see another front opened up in this war!
- goldfeld 14y ago
  I'd sooner bet my money on FirefoxOS than Windows 8. Can't wait to develop natively with little more than what gets me on browsers. And I'd similarly sooner bet on FOS going head-to-head with iOS with a non-fragmented system than on Google getting his act together. Especially since Android is expanding to so many other kinds of devices, it's fragmentation is it's biggest trait and I think it's a pretty hard trend to revert. That's like asking Internet Explorer to become the zeitgeist standards-compliant browser--they have taken too long, much as they try to revert (and they are) other browsers have already taken over it's share and will continue to (especially now that Microsoft guaranteed the non-longevity of it's desktop OS going forward). To be clear, I don't mean they can't solve the fragmentation problem, only that they have left this breach open long enough for a competitor to become the new cool kid before they could hope to pivot their behemoth operation. That's my prediction at least.
- MrScruff 14y ago
LaGrange 14y ago
The difference is (at least for now) that I actually get more useful apps on my iPhone. And if that changes, then in 3 years I'll get an Android. For now though, it seems that iOS remains more attractive for developers, and that's what keeps it more attractive for me as well. I am worried about what will happen if a company that doesn't get the majority of its profits from hardware "wins," but on the other hand — the most recent turn of the real "mac vs PC" doesn't really seem that bad for Macs either.

32 points by ForFreedom 14y ago

It is not Mac v/s PC all over again because android can also be shipped without google. Windows cannot be shipped without Microsoft. It is also not mac v/s PC because a rival had a considerable share of revenue stream of android. (Much like if linux had a revenue portion of windows) And android's owner has different plans for earning money off of android. Mostly by search traffic and store sales and negligible for licensing.

mtgx 14y ago
You can talk about those differences, and of course it's not a 100% analogy, but I think his main point was about the market share and the ecosystem. If Android ends up with 3 billion users in 2015, and iOS only 1 billion, as predicted (also with the whole of Windows at 1.5 billion users, from 1.3 bn now), I expect most developers will be wanting to develop for Android first by then, and it should be their #1 source for income, too, simply through sheer numbers of users.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  "I expect most developers will be wanting to develop for Android first by then" I doubt it: - Owners of Android handsets on average have lower disposable income than owners of iOS devices. On top of that, a lot of Android phones are in developing countries. - Most Android handsets run an old version of the OS and will never be updated, thus limiting the choice of APIs that developers can use. - Many Android handsets are used as dumbphones, their owners will never download apps. - There is not one main app marketplace for Android, and not all Android users can use the same marketplaces. - Few Google Play accounts have credit cards linked to them. Amazon is in a much better position, but Apple still has more credit cards on file. - Google makes developers pay for chargebacks.
  - maxdeliso 14y ago
    Having done corporate grade mobile work, there's no question of which platform is easier to develop for. On Android, not only do you have to simultaneously target in some cases four or five different API levels, you also have to hit several combinations of screen dimensions and resolutions. The documentation for Android is also lacking in comparison to the iOS docs. The android SDK, though comprehensive and generally very high quality, suffers from the same complexity problems arising from issues related to fragmentation. Remember though, most of the developers who are doing work that actually matters on mobile aren't doing it because they want do, they're doing it because a corporate strategist thought it would be profitable use of their time.
    - cageface 14y ago
      I haven't found this to be the case at all. With the compat libs you can pretty easily target 2.3 and 4.x. And the dynamic layout issues are more than offset by the much greater flexibility of Android's layout managers. An iOS app I'm working on right now has been a nightmare in comparison because we had to port our layouts to the i5 form factor but can't require iOS 6 just to get autologous. Apple really blew that transition.
      - maxdeliso 14y ago
        Still: how many currently deployed devices running iOS are you going to be QAing that application on? Two, maybe Three? How many versions of iOS are you going to be seeing on those devices? One or two most likely, iPhone users tend to upgrade with their software with much more conformity and faster. Compare that to Androids upwards of fifteen (and growing) widespread devices, and a heinous amount of API levels in the wild. That's one of the more objective factors which make Android easier. Also, you can say that the API level differences don't matter because they are hidden by compatibility libraries like The Support Package, but the truth is that those are just the newer APIs re-implemented against the old interfaces. You pay for that extra abstraction with wasted cycles and bloat, and it's an ugly solution. Even still, those libraries aren't perfect: there have been subtle bugs or incompatibilities introduced by their use which are notoriously hard to find. Finally, even if the newer APIs are present on the device, The Support Library will still be used (last I checked, though I think they are working on this). Less objectively, it's a matter of preference. Some people just prefer objective C to a JVM compilable language.

d4nt 14y ago

The difference this time is that there are very workable ways in which developers can target both platforms i.e. web/HTML5, and some other frameworks. Plus there's usually more paying customers in the iOS world so going "Native Android first" is not the obvious strategy that "Native Windows first" was.

maxdeliso 14y ago
Although that's true in principle it's a little idealized: HTML5 development on mobile is still a little half baked and impractical. You only have to look at Facebook's massive abandonment (at least temporarily) of that platform in favor of the native API. The whole point of the article is that while there are more paying customers in the iOS world NOW, it's unlikely that the situation will continue to be true given the current trends.

goldfeld 14y ago

Don't forget little FirefoxOS, our Linux in the making. Let's hope this time it's sexy and mainstream from the start. That'd be an interesting scenario.

d4nt 14y ago

davidlumley 14y ago

More shipment based speculation with little regard to actual sales. For me, the biggest difference between Mac vs PC, and iOS vs Android is that Mac and PC are mostly comparable. iOS and some Android phone/tablets are comparable but a large majority of cheap Android phones are not in the same market as iOS devices, and for me - not comparable.

oneandoneis2 14y ago

Possibly the fact that the creator(s) of Android don't (directly) make any money out of the sales? Every Apple phone sold = Money for Apple Every Android phone != Money for Google That's not to say that Apple shouldn't be worried, but unlike in the Mac vs. PC situation, their competition isn't a single company making profit off every unit sold. It's a mass of semi-co-operative, semi-competitive groups; many of which are helping themselves to the free Android software without giving anything back to the people who made it. That's a big difference.

dewiz 14y ago
just wondering, is Android free also for smartphones' makers Samsung, HTC etc ?
- dan1234 14y ago
  Most Android manufacturers pay a per unit fee to Microsoft due to patent licensing, so I wouldn't say it was free.
- Someone 14y ago
  Yes and no. The OS is free, using the 'Android' name is not free as in speech, but (I think) free as in beer, as it does require compliance with Google's Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Lice... Shipping Google's applications (GMail, Maps, Google's store; maybe others) requires a license from Google. That probably is not free as in beer, either, but I find it hard to find definitive statements for that on the web. developer.android.com seems to only target software developers. Also, some technologies used in Android are patented, and require payments to patent holders. So, in practice, Android is not free for smartphone makers.
  - Rastafarian 14y ago
    Full license, including the name, access to Play, all Google apps is between $10 and $20 per device. The license comes with a very good rate for every online search made from an Android phone or tablet.

easyfrag 14y ago

The difference is that there's no comparable 800 pound gorilla controlling the dominant Non-Apple OS that runs on commodity non-Apple hardware. Well I guess there is but adhering to Google's terms are entirely voluntary (see Amazon). Microsoft was far more controlling which helped DOS/Windows develop into a single ubiquitous ecosystem. Google isn't so Android won't.

archgrove 14y ago

I think any answer to this will have to hinge on why, given the sales disparity, app revenue and "usage" metrics (i.e. mobile browsing) is still either in favour of iOS or tied. My personal reasoning is that carriers are pushing low end Android phones as the standard handset you get when you walk in the door and say "I need a phone". These people don't really know what they're getting in terms of an ecosystem, and seem to use very little smart functionality. iPhone users (and "high end" Android users), on the other hand, probably know exactly what they're buying into. These are the users that will determine developer targeting. Two ways I see for Android to decisively win this: either these "low-end" users start to participate in the eco-system, or the rise of low income countries (much of Asia, Africa etc) makes the weight of numbers so far in Android's favour that even with a much lower engagement rate, the money's there. Apple could counter this with "iPhone Nano", I guess, but it would require them to sacrifice a lot of margin. Outside tip: Samsung are becoming the Apple of Android smartphones, selling the preponderance of the high end handsets. Within 18 months, I suspect we'll see them fork Android to differentiate themselves from the "sell at near cost, make it up on ecosystem" strategy that Google's pursuing now with the Nexus (that reduce Samsung to basically a hardware supplier on razor-thin margins). Either that, or they'll use carrier relationships to ensure these cheap, high-end handsets don't ever really get in front of non-geeky consumers.

kumarm 14y ago
Samsung is also big on low end devices. In India Samsung pretty much is new Nokia. Samsung is neither low end or high end. They are selling whats suitable strategy for each country and its working damn well.
- taligent 14y ago
  I've been hearing the same and apparently the most popular Samsung device is the model that looks identical to the iPhone 3GS. I am curious how much of an advantage Android has by allowing pirated apps. In price sensitive markets the cost of apps has to be a key factor. If it is a big factor could be ominous signs for Nokia in particular.
bad_user 14y ago

recoiledsnake 14y ago

Carriers(at least in the US), for one. Carriers eat the extra cost of the iPhone making it the same $199 as other flagship Android phones. Whereas in the PC market, the price difference between Dell/Compaq/etc. and Apple made all the difference. Also, $199(or the $650 unlocked) is well within reach of a large number of customers nowadays, whereas $3000 in the later 80s was a huge amount(even more so than now because of inflation). In dollar terms, $3000 in 1989 would be $5,598.56 now.

justinschuh 14y ago
It amazes me that so few people understand that the carrier subsidy is such a huge part of the iPhone's success. Apple has pulled in obscene profits by making the carriers pay huge subsidies to keep the iPhone's price competitive. And the carriers turn around and amortize that cost over the rest of their customer base. So, the customers that don't own iPhones are the ones really getting screwed because they're paying the same higher rates but not getting the same hardware subsidy.

kgarten 14y ago

I don't think it's Mac vs. PC, as we are talking about eco-systems now. Also their statistic is majorly bogus, they use "units shipped" not sold. Web-traffic and profits show a "slightly" different picture. Edit: got rid off an unnecessary comment.

andrewcooke 14y ago

what does "mac vs pc" mean? i know it was an advertising campaign. i know there was competition between apple and pc manufacturers. but this article seems to assume that the phrase has some clear meaning/implication for the future (and that "it" is happening again). but what is "it"? is it just saying - look, the market is dividing into two brands, one with wider appeal and lower prices, the other aimed more at discretionary spending? if so, what is interesting about that? serious q - i feel i'm completely missing the point here. is the idea that this is dangerous for apple? if so, isn't the counterargument that, historically, apple has managed to adapt and innovate? i mean, it's hardly suffering right now.

panacea 14y ago
Fairly sure it refers to the locked down os-and-hardware bundling of Apple, vs. the install Windows on anyone's hardware, back in the day. Microsoft won that battle and Apple barely scraped through. Will Android win this time round in a similar fashion? Apple sells more iPods than Macs.
netcan 14y ago
He's referring to the competition between Apple's Mac & MS Dos + Windows in the late 80s to mid-90s. The compressed version of the narrative is: Mac was innovative, brilliant, early but too expensive & without enough applications. Windows was late, copied & sucked but was cheaper (because of commodity hardware) had all the dos apps from the 80s and got gradually better. By 95 the network effects of the developer ecosystem had locked windows in to 20 years of dominance. It also helped that by 95 windows didn't really suck much. The moral of the story is (supposedly) that OS Platforms have one winner. Developers develop for the largest user base and users buy the cheapest platform with the most apps.

Tycho 14y ago

Isn't it obvious? Because phones have completely different use cases to PCs. There's no Microsoft Office effect that renders your smartphone inconvenient due to the small marketshare of its OS.

Rastafarian 14y ago
Of course there is, e.g. any government/public funded mobile app will have to be developed on Android first or only.
- Tycho 14y ago
  But mobile apps are always secondary to websites anyway. I do not think this would rise above occasional minor irritation. Whereas Mac incompatibility was a deal breaker in the 90s. It also helps that Apple has a lot more muscle these days.

ja27 14y ago

It's a little more like MS-DOS clones vs. the Apple II line. The Apple II had an early lead in the personal computer market, especially for businesses. The IBM PC eventually took over, but mostly thanks to third party PCs running licensed MS-DOS. Microsoft never built their own PC to run MS-DOS (or later, Windows) until just now.

beloch 14y ago

Even if OS-wars don't matter as much as they used to, Android vs iOS is shaping up to be an interesting one. Android has taken the lead in features. Every new release of iOS is packed with things that Android has had for years. Android is still lagging behind in polish, and iOS is utterly dominant when it comes to gaming. Google spends more than twice what Apple does on research (that's after Apple bumped up their R&D budget too!). Apple is going to be playing catch-up in terms of features for the foreseeable future. Google has taken some steps to improve their polish, such as project butter, but that bright future is most unevenly distributed. Google's attempts at polish will likely be thwarted by the same thing that scares off game-writers: fragmentation. In the near future, I think Android will take the lead and become the better OS, except for gaming. Google is putting too much effort into polish not to catch up quick (with their premier devices at least) while Apple isn't doing enough to close the feature-gap and is actually falling further behind (e.g. NFC, wireless charging, etc.). If Google ever manages to solve their fragmentation woes that'll basically be it for the iPhone. Windows 8 phones are, of course, a bit of a dark horse. WM8 appears to be a nice mobile OS that is going to come on some very nice hardware. It might be WM7 all over again, or it might actually catch on. I'd love to see another front opened up in this war!

goldfeld 14y ago
I'd sooner bet my money on FirefoxOS than Windows 8. Can't wait to develop natively with little more than what gets me on browsers. And I'd similarly sooner bet on FOS going head-to-head with iOS with a non-fragmented system than on Google getting his act together. Especially since Android is expanding to so many other kinds of devices, it's fragmentation is it's biggest trait and I think it's a pretty hard trend to revert. That's like asking Internet Explorer to become the zeitgeist standards-compliant browser--they have taken too long, much as they try to revert (and they are) other browsers have already taken over it's share and will continue to (especially now that Microsoft guaranteed the non-longevity of it's desktop OS going forward). To be clear, I don't mean they can't solve the fragmentation problem, only that they have left this breach open long enough for a competitor to become the new cool kid before they could hope to pivot their behemoth operation. That's my prediction at least.
MrScruff 14y ago

LaGrange 14y ago

The difference is (at least for now) that I actually get more useful apps on my iPhone. And if that changes, then in 3 years I'll get an Android. For now though, it seems that iOS remains more attractive for developers, and that's what keeps it more attractive for me as well. I am worried about what will happen if a company that doesn't get the majority of its profits from hardware "wins," but on the other hand — the most recent turn of the real "mac vs PC" doesn't really seem that bad for Macs either.