Woz Says Android Will Dominate 416
cloudcreator writes "Woz [said] that Android smartphones, not the iPhone, would become dominant, noting that the Google OS is likely to win the race similarly to the way that Windows ultimately dominated the PC world." Update: 11/19 04:54 GMT by T : Apparently, Woz's words were taken slightly out of context.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Use what you want and leave the "I win"/"you win" dogma aside.
Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API. Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.
Re:open vs closed (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, probably a bad thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Take that, Steve! (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought Woz and Jobs got along pretty well even now, but I can't imagine this sort of thing making their relationship any better.
And I hope Woz is wrong, and no company "wins" the phone OS wars, because if somebody wins, then eventually they'll become a monopoly and all the consumers will lose.
Re:Dumb Phones (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that mandatory data plans function as a way for the carrier to make back the share of the phone they paid for.
Not saying it's right (personally, I agree with you), just saying it's the way it likely is.
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Features? (Score:4, Insightful)
Woz is arguing that it's the featureset that will lead Android to victory. I don't agree. Features don't sell the phones. So long as it covers all the most common bases the extra stuff is just nice to have, it's not a key decision point. Any smartphone could become dominant at the moment so long as it has a good interface, looks ok, gives the user access to the software they want and, crucially, is marketed well enough. Even if iOS lags behind on features Apple won't be lagging behind on marketing. It's what they're good at, and ultimately it's what will keep them on top.
He's wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows didn't dominate because of random events. It piggy-backed on the popularity of the hardware, specifically the IBM PC. When the PC won, so too did MS-DOS and its overlay called windows. If the PC had died, so too would have DOS and windows.
Android doesn't have the advantage of sitting on the #1 piece of hardware like windows had.
Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Insightful)
While I kind of agree with you, your example is preposterous. Try upgrading a computer of the PSX era (Say, Pentium II at 400MHz with a Voodoo 2 card) to run a game of the PS3 era (say, Half-Life 2) and you'll find it a frustrating experience. Or you'll basically be replacing everything in the case, and you'll have an ugly computer by modern standards. Which is OK, but you probably won't save any money as compared to buying a complete refurb if you're not looking to build the ultimate computer.
But you can upgrade your computer to run newer games, or if you aren't too into games, you can keep your old PC running for years to just do regular tasks.
You can keep the PSX running for years to play PSX games, too, if you're willing to replace the laser assembly periodically; and there's a continuing supply of replacement parts being made to fill the substantial demand.
There's room for both (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as both platforms keep making their customers happy I don't see why they won't both continue to do well. If neither knocks the other to irrelevance it's not "dominant".
Apple does great holding the line on the "premium" phone, making lots of money for their shareholders. Android does great at providing a vast array of choices at varying levels of cost.
The concern with domination is that a dominant player will crush all opposition and bring progress to a halt to protect its monopoly. I don't see that happening with either of these players. The player in the field that plays that way is having a hard time getting his game on.
So, Apple is the loser? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard for me to look at Apple as a loser in this battle. They may not win the marketshare battle, but they are very profitable and influential. People generally love their products.
Not bad for coming in second place.
Re:Take that, Steve! (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that if Android wins then the community can assemble a working Android clone from the Android kernel itself and a cobbled-together userspace, because Android is documented and itself assembled from Open technologies (even if there is some debate over how Free they are, which I hope and suspect will turn out to be pure FUD.) But Apple has substantial closed-source componentry above the kernel layer in their operating systems, so while it's probably possible there too it would probably be much more difficult.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux (the ecosystem) doesnt have "one API", it has dozens. And all of them are updated so often and so unpredictably that by the time you finished your application, you cant install it on new systems without rewriting parts of it. Bad, really bad "API stability" is the main reason Linux failed so badly in the "industry".
> Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API.
The other part was supporting this API for decades, and thus saving their customers the expenses of rewriting their applications over and over and over.
Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Insightful)
BS. Hardware manufacturers in the cell phone market do NOT compete on price. All the smart phones are priced the same INCLUDING the iPhone. Android may outsell iOS in the future mostly due to user preference. Not of the OS, but of the hardware. There will never be a iOS device with a physical keyboard. The iPhone will continue to be the most popular individual handset. Android will also find a home on quasi smart phones that lack the all the features.
iOS is JUST as open to third party development as Android. iPhone hardware is just as open to hacking as any Android phone bought in the US. The average American is never going to order the unlocked version from overseas. The only thing closed on iOS is App distribution. And, if you really care about that, get a developer licenses and load your own apps manually. Sad fact is, the average user shouldn't have the ability to install anything. Windows and the Internet taught us this.
Re:open vs closed (Score:3, Insightful)
The situation between Google and Apple here isn't the same as between PC/Mac and Linux. Google markets their Android. I see commercials and advertisements for it everywhere. Yes, it's open technology, but it's open technology people know about. It is also similar to Apple's iPhone, which means people know how to use it. It makes a huge difference in adoption rates.
So I suppose in closing, Google's open technology could indeed win the day, and if you want Linux to take off, you best be getting commercials for it in primetime as well.
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
How does that help people buying current 1.6 phones because they don't know any better, and then wondering why so many apps are unavailable on their devices?
If Google doesn't start forcing carriers/vendors to upgrade their handsets in a timely manner, no amount of SDK wizardry is going to help.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheap vs Expensive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheap shit sells better. Why is this a surprise?
This isn't a race... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I do not want one or even two to dominate.
Really that sucks.
Right now we have multiable consoles and that works out pretty well.
I would like to see IOS, Android, MeeGo, QNX/Blackberry, and WebOS all have about equal shares.
That would drive competition and improvements.
Let's face it before IOS the state of MobilePhone OSs was pretty bad. Apple brought new ideas and fried everybody else up.
WebOS for those that have not used it is IMHO has the best UI out. It has the best multitasking interface out there.
BTW I own an Android phone, develop for IOS, and my wife has a WebOS phone so I have used all of them a good bit.
Android brought a compass to the list of standard hardware on a smartphone. Apple is now bringing super dense displays and gyros.
Microsoft brings it's name and a pretty UI. IMHO it is still lacking a lot of manditory features for a phone OS but that is just my opinon.
So no I want everyone to have a nice sized slice of the pie. That will be the best possible outcome. I do not want to be stuck like we are with PCs where one OS has 70+ of the market and one ISA has 100+ of the consumer market.
Oh and I want a new ISA for phones that isn't based on the ARM. PPC, MIPS, SH-4... Come on folks.
Woz was never the business genius (Score:5, Insightful)
He is a techie. Jobs is the business genius. Apple does not need to dominate to make a tidy profit. It's like that saying, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Microsoft does all of the people some of the time. Apple does some of the people all of the time.
Microsoft dominates the desktop. Does Apple care? Not as long as some folks are still willing to pay a premium for their desktop products. Nokia dominates cell phones. Apple says, "So, what?", as long as some folks make them a profit. If Android dominates smart phones, Apple will not care for the same reason. Why do some folks pay exorbitant prices for a Harley Davidson when compared to a rice burner?
And no, I'm not an Apple FanBoy, but I live with an Apple FanGrrrl. I only bought her an iPhone when I could get it re-imported, unlocked. And the UK uses some crazy-ass plugs on their electrical devices.
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Android isn't going to get 90% market share or anything like that.
I expect iOS, Blackberry and Windows Mobile to continue to challenge and compete in the market. Four serious contenders in the same market should provide for a reasonable amount of competition and innovation.
Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux has already won over proprietary unix, anyone remember SCO unixware or BSDi?
All the other proprietary unixes are relegated to niches on their own hardware (AIX, HPUX) or dead (Tru64, Ultrix, DG/UX, IRIX)
Windows has inertia and lock-in behind it, but windows has already proven that open technology will win out over proprietary - software was always considered a very cheap component of an expensive hardware purchase so windows came along for the ride in the drive towards the open x86 compatible...
Proprietary hardware has also been driven into small expensive niches despite being massively superior to the open x86 hardware of its day..
It was obvious from the get-go (Score:3, Insightful)
Android will win by marketshare, which is percentage of phones running the OS. Of course, Apple doesn't feel threatened - and it makes sense when you think about it. Apple has 2 models of iPhones out there now - iPhone 4, and iPhone 3GS. Android devices - well, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, HTC, they seem to easily have a dozen different models each. Plus all the other no-name brands out there releasing Android phones without Google (or pirating it). So you probably have over 50+ models of Android phones out there, compared to 2 from Apple. Of course Android phones will outsell the iPHone.
Now, should Apple worry? Probably not, because they're raking in the money. Profit wise, Apple commands a huge chunk (nearly half) of total mobile phone industry profits (including dumbphones), while RIM, Nokia, Samsung and LG dominate the remaining chunk. By handsets sold, Nokia, RIM, Samsung and LG dominate the charts, while Apple just has a tiny sliver. It doesn't matter that Apple is in #3 or #4 (after Symbian, RIM and Android) - as long as they're raking in the cash.
And I'm talking phones only - ignoring Android running tablets and multimedia players, and iPod Touches and iPads. The numbers that way are too vague.
Also, carriers LOVE Android. Face it - Sprint loves putting its NASCAR apps preloaded, Verizon loves its V-cast stuff, etc - all the "value-added" software to make carriers more money. Carriers hate the iPhone - what sane control-hungry corporation wants to give up complete control of the handset (hardware AND software) to Apple, and not only that, pay Apple for the priviledge of carrying the iPhone? When instead they can carry Android phones, and tell HTC, Samsung, and Motorola to shove it until they cripple certain features, preload crapware, and all the other stuff?
P.S. - I use an iPhone because it's free of carrier control. I want an Android phone, but giving up 3G isn't an option, and I want straight-from-Google updates. Hoping the Nexus Two will satisfy.
Re:open vs closed (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux has pretty much won over closed source. Appliances run Linux, supercomputers run Linux, servers run Linux. About the only place Linux as an OS doesn't dominate is on the desktop.
Now, with Android, Linux is dominating in phones.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
While there are many different standards for different "sections" of the API, it is not like there are completely separate conflicting standards except in a couple of edge cases (the only example I can think of is VA-API vs. VDPAU vs. XvBA, which one could argue is the fault of proprietary manufacturers). Even when such a change is made, the vast majority of libraries continue to provide the old functions for backward-compatibility -- and for libraries that don't it is drop-dead simple for a manufacturer to provide the version of the library that they used and the linker will take care of the rest.
I've had to re-write portions of Windows applications numerous times to get them to run properly on newer versions. If I'd been providing Linux apps I could have just dropped into the installer the version of the library I linked against, about the only libraries you can do that with on Windows are the MSVC++ runtimes.
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
How does that help people buying current 1.6 phones because they don't know any better, and then wondering why so many apps are unavailable on their devices?
If Google doesn't start forcing carriers/vendors to upgrade their handsets in a timely manner, no amount of SDK wizardry is going to help.
I agree with this, but unfortunately, since Android is Open Source, Google can't force manufacturers to do anything at all.
The only power Google has is with the App Market. I would love to see Google do what you suggest and start limiting what kind of backward compatibility is offered in the Market. There is absolutely no reason that a new phone should be released running Android 2.1. NO REASON AT ALL! Google could limit Market licenses and block any phone released in the past 6 months that's not running Froyo. There is no excuse for the Samsung Epic to still be running 2.1. Hell, for that matter, there is no good reason that the HTC Hero can't have Froyo running.
Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Insightful)
Sega tried that with the Mega-CD and 32X...
But the whole idea of a console is that it stays the same so you are guaranteed the games will run and not require any additional hardware you might not have, or won't run in a low detail mode or very slowly.
Re:open vs closed (Score:1, Insightful)
iOS is open provided:
1: You develop on Macs only. Hackintoshes do not count because the BSA comes down hard on people using pirated operating systems for commercial gain. Android code is happily written on Windows, OS X, Linux or BSD.
2: You have your ducks in a row 100% before submitting the app for approval. If something causes it to be rejected, your app won't be in the new apps list and will have no visibility in Apple's App Store. There is also a delay when getting critical updates out. Your app has a show stopping bug that is causing customers to demand refunds from Apple? Expect to wait 1-2 weeks if not more time before your update gets on the store to fix things. Android, initial app submittal and updates are immediate. In fact, one of the cool things about Android's store is how often and fast devs update their apps. Some devs are *extremely* responsive, and I've seen apps take a suggestion one day, and have it in the app the next.
3: I do not need to jailbreak for basic functionality. Say an app crashes and I need the files it is storing. On Android, I can just fire up adb, tar off the files. On iOS, unless I jailbreak and ssh in, all my work would be lost.
4: I have to JB iOS devices in order to get widget functionality. To some, it is ugly, but to others, being able to see weather, a snippet of E-mail, tasks, and maybe the latest FB gossip is a good thing.
5: Android devices don't need to be tied to one single PC. All they really need from a PC is perhaps to have the memory card backed up once in a while, or music copied to the device. iOS devices will not work unless they have a "home" machine that activates them and copies music. Of course, there are third party utilities to help with this... for now. Apple can easily change the connection spec between iTunes and the iPhone to render those products irrelevant in a heartbeat.
Of course, jailbreaking is what a lot of people do and as of now is a solution... but there may come a time where the iPhone is so difficult to jailbreak that it does not get Cydia on it until the next model is out.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux actually has an extremely stable API which allows you to compile software written for unix systems that hugely predate linux...
Your probably thinking about the fast and open development of linux which means that new features are added quickly, and different distros add different features... But if you stick to the core APIs your programs will run on virtually any regular linux (may not work on extremely cut down embedded versions) and usually also on other unix based systems too.
Re:open vs closed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So, Apple is the loser? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Look at Nokia. They absolutely dominate the global smartphone market. Much, much larger marketshare than Apple. And still, nobody is developing for them.
A large number of phones doesn't necessarily translate into more profits unless the attach rate (to borrow a term from the game console market) is there. I can't find the source right now, but I recently read that the average iPhone owner is much more likely to pay for apps than the average Android owner. Apple and Apple developers might find that a smaller group of affluent customers is plenty profitable.
Re:I'm right in the middle of switching at the mom (Score:3, Insightful)
I also feel the lack buttons is holding the iphone back, despite what 'focus groups' claim about the buttons, you simply end up wasting screen real estate with onscreen buttons.
What would those extra buttons do? I don't think the use of the extra buttons on Android and WP7 are that much of an advantage.
- it's all there and in 4.3" on this model, not 3.5" - honestly at 32, with my eyes - that's a bloody godsend.
A bigger screen, in itself, is always good. But the thing I like about the size of the iPhone is that I can easily use it with one hand. If something is a bit too small, I just hold it closer.
Re:open vs closed (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you'll find that Linux is a long way from winning over OS X. (Speaking as someone who uses both every day.)
Re:Cheap vs Expensive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Take that, Steve! (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought Woz and Jobs got along pretty well even now, but I can't imagine this sort of thing making their relationship any better.
Every once in awhile you can find comments from Woz about what its like having a friendship with Jobs. Or Woz's opinions on Apple products. Woz tends to put forward a generally positive view of most things he comments on - to include both Jobs and Apple. But he has said that Jobs can be difficult for people to get along with at times. And he's spoken against the expected Apple line in the past. And its not the first time he's made comments that could be perceived as negative towards the iPhone.
In the end, when you talk to Jobs, you're talking to Apple. When you talk to Woz, you're not talking to Apple. You're talking to a guy who likes technology and practical jokes. A guy who's an Apple insider that isn't in the inner circle of Apple. You're talking to someone who's linked deeply to Silicon Valley and Apple culture. And you're talking to a hacker who's hacks were part of a revolution. But you're not talking to Apple.
Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you can keep your old computer running and play PSX games for years... and every other console that's more than a few years old.
Reality of driving down costs (Score:3, Insightful)
All that matters is that there is competition among hardware and software vendors to drive down the price of systems
Competition drives down price only to the extent that you can sell something at the same price or slightly better than another competitor.
But Android is not its own market; it includes Apple too because you have to say that all phones are competing against each other - and here's where having a number of different hardware makers works against the lowest possible price floor. Because a company that sells quite a few devices alone can get better pricing on components than several other hardware makers that split the remainder of the market. It's why Apple has been able to price things like the iPad cheaper than anyone else can make them.
to drive down the price of systems and increase compatibility....This obviously will never happen with Apple's OS since there is no hardware compatibility or competition.
Which totally ignores the Apple devices are sold in a larger market, as I said. It's quite obvious it HAS happened already with Apple pricing all the device lineup pretty aggressively AND maintaing above average margins. And as for the compatibility angle, iOS apps are more compatible amongst the many iOS devices sold than Android apps are with all the Android systems around.
Re:open vs closed (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not write off Microsoft's Windows Phone OS yet. They have billions they can, will, and are spending on marketing and that will likely include special deals like 'ship ours and not theirs and we'll make you this deal' type of arrangements.
LoB
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
SPoken like someone who doesn't remember the early days of the PC. Yeah, you want a winner. Otherwise it becomes a complete mess of incompatibility.
Now, if one application would run on ANY of them? then sure spread out the OS.
Now, the very reason you really want a winner with this is the same reason an open platform with win out.
Windows survives because it is entrenched.
With fundalemental technologies, competition often hurts consumer. They only way to prevent that is to have a 'standard' that all device support. Each phone might have addition features or value but there needs to be a core set of common expectations of use and functions.
Look at what a mess the IM world was in, for years. And in some case is still in.
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I do remember. Atari 800, Commodore SuperPet, TI99/4a TRS-80s, Apple II+, Commodore 64, Amiga, ST all of it.
Guess what? It was exciting, lots of inovation. New stuff all the time. The Amiga did everything that the WIndows 95 did but in 1985.
No I don't want one winner. PCs are deadly dull. Wow this CPU can encode H.264 at this many frames a second why this one can do it at this many.
About the only even marginally exciting area are GPUs and that is just now moving. Wow do I want a black Windows 7 notebook or a silver one?
Yawn.....
No thanks the slow pace of change and the deadly dullness is too high a price to pay.