Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Iphone Technology

Woz Says Android Will Dominate 416

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the staring-into-the-crystal-ball dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Woz Says Android Will Dominate

Comments Filter:
  • Just so long as SCOracle doesn't kill it.
  • by nomorecwrd (1193329) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:14AM (#34268062)
    Isn't it obvious?
    Open technology will always win over closed

    Just like Linux....

    er, hmm, never mind.
    • Re:open vs closed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by robot256 (1635039) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:19AM (#34268138)
      All that matters is that it's open to third party hardware and third party developers in general. The exact nature of that openness is irrelevant as far as the consumer is concerned. All that matters is that there is competition among hardware and software vendors to drive down the price of systems and increase compatibility, and people will buy it in ever-increasing numbers. This obviously will never happen with Apple's OS since there is no hardware compatibility or competition.
      • Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Interesting)

        by tepples (727027) <<tepples> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:26AM (#34268242) Homepage Journal

        All that matters is that it's open to third party hardware and third party developers in general.

        The three major video game consoles are less open than even an iPhone, yet consoles beat PCs in sales in several genres.

        • by uncanny (954868)
          That's comparing two different things. Can you upgrade parts of a PS1 to run PS3 games? no. 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.
          • Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Insightful)

            by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:35AM (#34268362) Homepage Journal

            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.

          • by tepples (727027)

            Can you upgrade parts of a PS1 to run PS3 games? no.

            Can you easily upgrade the CPU and video card of a laptop or a small-form-factor PC to run newer PC games? no. Can you upgrade an early-PS2-era PC to run PS3-class PC games without replacing everything but the case, the TV, and the controllers? no.

            or if you aren't too into games, you can keep your old PC running for years to just do regular tasks.

            This would be possible with consoles as well if it weren't for not being open. See what was done with PS3 Other OS before Sony shut it down.

          • Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Bert64 (520050) <(bert) (at) (slashdot.firenzee.com)> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:16AM (#34269020) Homepage

            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.

        • by Civil_Disobedient (261825) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:51AM (#34269630)

          The three major video game consoles are less open than even an iPhone, yet consoles beat PCs in sales in several genres.

          Yeah, but bread is more open than an iPhone, and bread has outsold PCs and iPhones hand-over-fist for centuries .

          This is why we should never have gotten rid of analogies on the SATs.

      • Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by donny77 (891484) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:40AM (#34268444)

        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:4, Interesting)

          by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:04AM (#34268798) Homepage

          the iPhone's biggest problem is the fact that most people DO NOT WANT AT&T as a carrier.

          I know a lot of peole that have android phones that really like my iPhone4 but say, "Great phone, too bad you are on AT&T"

          Honestly, Apple needs to pull the stupid exclusivity with AT&T, it's the #1 thing keeping people from even considering an iPhone.

          The #2 is the misconception that it's "expensive" and has an "expensive plan" I run into that a lot and most every one looks at me saying really? when I say the phone is $399 and I pay $89.00 a month for 1400 minutes and unlimited data (Grandfathered! suck it peeps!) but even not grandfathered it's still less than $99.00 a month. Buddy of mine is paying $115.00 a month for his verizon plan with 2gb data.

      • 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 compa

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Locutus (9039)
        exactly and by it being open at the base OS level it means that what Microsoft did to keep Windows dominant can not happen on Android. Microsoft keep changing the API's so that their software applications always supported the updated OS first and they used private/hidden API's to give their software advantages over the competition. And it also helps that right now, Google makes their money from everyone putting ads on their free apps and from mobile search use while Microsoft made money on the OS and their
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rakuen (1230808)
      Marketing is a big deal. Microsoft and Apple constantly market things. They're always in your face. The general public knows they exist, and they also know how to use them without too much fuss. Compare this to Linux, which I have never seen a mainstream advertisement for and which can be daunting to a new user.

      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
    • by mveloso (325617)

      Cheap shit sells better. Why is this a surprise?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rgviza (1303161)
        Definitely sells better than a polished turd with a higher price tag. Most people like to polish a turd their own way and pay a lower price.
    • by falldeaf (968657)
      Actually, Woz was saying android would win because of features and hardware choice, not because of openness. He's got a pretty good point there because it sure seems like history repeating itself after the PC race. And btw, Android IS linux.
    • Re:open vs closed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bert64 (520050) <(bert) (at) (slashdot.firenzee.com)> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:57AM (#34268692) Homepage

      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..

    • Re:open vs closed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:01AM (#34268752) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by schnikies79 (788746) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:14AM (#34268064)

    Use what you want and leave the "I win"/"you win" dogma aside.

    • by AnonymousClown (1788472) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:20AM (#34268158)

      However, he then conceded that, "Android phones have more features," and offer more choice for more people. Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.

      In the news, an Apple fanboy ran up to Mr.Wozniak, starting beating against Mr. Wozniak's chest and exclaimed "You beast! You beast! You beast! You beast!You beast! You beast!You beast!" and after exhausting himself, broke down in tears. Mr Wozniak then held the fanboy and said, "There there. Shhhhhhhh. It's OK. It'll never be Apple. Shhhhhhhhhh."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by falldeaf (968657)
      Well, it's not quite that simple. There's some good reasons to cheer for your favorite platform. The platform that's doing the best gets the most attention from developers and hardware manufacturers. Also, some apps are more useful with a larger user base, like multiplayer games... Go android! :)
      • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:50AM (#34268578) Homepage Journal

        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.
         

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Enderandrew (866215)

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by geekoid (135745)

          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 su

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by LWATCDR (28044)

            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 not

    • by robot256 (1635039)
      That's right. We're consumers! We vote with our wallets! And since all smartphones are terribly unsecure and overpriced, I'm voting for the dumbphone! End of problem.
    • "Use what you want and leave the "I win"/"you win" dogma aside."

      That's great advise for users. Not much use if you don't happen to be in the IT/Mobile industries, and need to know what direction those industries are taking.

    • by tepples (727027)

      Use what you want and leave the "I win"/"you win" dogma aside.

      Provided that what I want even exists. The iPhone is to the iPod touch as an Android phone is to what Android media player that one can try in person? I looked for Archos 43 and Samsung Galaxy Player 50, which fit this description according to online reports, but neither Best Buy nor Sears had it. Where do you recommend buying gadgets like these online that doesn't charge a restocking fee if I try the product and end up finding it unusably unergonomic?

  • Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swimin (828756) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:15AM (#34268076)

    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.

    • Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API.

      Yeah, that's why Linux is particularly successful as well. :)

      • Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)

        by muuh-gnu (894733) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:39AM (#34268430)

        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:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Compholio (770966) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:02AM (#34268776)

          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".

          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.

          > 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.

          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:4, Insightful)

          by Bert64 (520050) <(bert) (at) (slashdot.firenzee.com)> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:24AM (#34269140) Homepage

          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.

        • by walshy007 (906710)

          Linux (the ecosystem) doesnt have "one API", it has dozens.

          usually only a couple for a specific task, but yes there is usually more than one for a given topic.

          . 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.

          absolute bullshit. I can compile programs from 2000 just fine and dandy and use them (note you said API not ABI compatibility)

          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.

          If you mean ABI compatibility (you would have to on windows because they don't distribute source) tell me how your win2k drivers load on you windows 7 install then. Or how c&c red alert windows version loads on windows 7.

          Overall the only thing windows has going for it is the whole

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's really easy to do that, actually; you set up your project to use the 1.6 libraries, or the 2.1 libraries, or whatever older version you want, and only use the newer ones if they have a feature you need. Take a look at the devkit sometime, it's free.

      • Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bemymonkey (1244086) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:40AM (#34268456)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ArcherB (796902)

          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 runnin

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by bemymonkey (1244086)

            As far as I know, manufacturers also need "approval" of some sort in order to use all the Google apps - Maps & Navigation, GMail, EMail, Youtube and so on... Couldn't threatening to withhold those be a decent incentive to keep handsets up to date as well?

      • It's really easy to do that, actually; you set up your project to use the 1.6 libraries, or the 2.1 libraries, or whatever older version you want, and only use the newer ones if they have a feature you need. Take a look at the devkit sometime, it's free.

        Easy is a very relative term. This sounds similar to the BlackBerry setup - which means it's anything but easy. Each new OS iteration adds features that developers want to be able to incorporate into their applciations; however, they also need to retain compatibility with older versions. Your suggestion doesn't address that - based on what you suggest, as soon as there's a new feature you need/want, you're now stuck targeting the newest platform - in spite of the installed base of millions of handsets u

    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:23AM (#34268188) Journal

      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.

      No it doesn't. That would certainly help but it's not necessary. If you read the very short article:

      However, he then conceded that, "Android phones have more features," and offer more choice for more people. Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.

      Emphasis mine. You're mostly right about Windows (I think marketing should be mentioned) but Android could fail on 5% of the phones that ship with it and I think it will still be okay if it can match iOS in the above categories. I think everyone knows that two or three years from now Android will be the clear winner. There would have to be earth shattering changes made on either Android or Apple's part in order to shake off course what has been set in motion. Even the market analysts have been saying this [slashdot.org].

      Let's face it, there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing. That's not a bad thing, it's just the reality of targeting all the devices made by the Open Handset Alliance. That's a lot of devices. That's a lot of choices. They're doing the best they can but at some point you just can't magically give hardware support to a device that doesn't have the hardware. And I think that problem is inseparable from the choices Android wants to give consumers.

      • by tepples (727027)

        there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing.

        And as far as I know, none of them work on Android-based media players (as opposed to smartphones) because the Android Market app doesn't come on devices without a 3G radio.

        • there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing.

          And as far as I know, none of them work on Android-based media players (as opposed to smartphones) because the Android Market app doesn't come on devices without a 3G radio.

          I think it's important to be clear that you mean they simply can't be gotten from the Android Market. Not that all of them don't work.

          There's a pretty simple method called sideloading [pocketnow.com] that allows you to put non-market apps on your phone. Of course, this usually requires you to get Astro or Dropbox or some such app on your device first. Commonly you can do that from the Market App which you note is not on media players (PMPs).

          But I think it's important to note that it's not the Android API's fau

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Let's face it, there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet

        There's lots of ways a tablet with multitouch can give a superior experience, but there's not too many ways in which it can possibly be required except when you're talking about multiple users on the same display at once. And honestly, no tablet really seems to have what it takes to do that reliably and gracefully at this point, although we've seen some cool hacks around. (And I could be wrong.) And most of the applications that "can't" be shoehorned into a PDA-sized display simply have poor UI design. Lots

    • Pretty much. Android is the mobile PC platform complete with the same pros and cons. Minus the user building their own phone from spare parts of course.

      I know it sounds lame, but with all the different specs of hardware and OS revisions out there, Google should create Market filters to be used by default. That is to say, depending on your Android, only apps that are knows to work with your specific OS and hardware will be viewable. Unless that the end user absolutely has to have that application, non-tested

    • by dzfoo (772245)

      The other part, which people seem to easily forget, was the ruthless anti-competitive behaviour exerted by Microsoft over OEMs, and the huge strategic missteps that Apple made; due in part to the hubris and inexperience of Jobs. Neither of these are likely to re-occur on the current mobile market, at least not in the same way.

      I'm not suggesting that Apple will "win". All I'm saying is that it is not clear that "open will trump closed every time," as some suggest, and that taking the WinTel PC open archite

    • Re:Maybe (Score:4, Informative)

      by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:59AM (#34269778) Homepage Journal

      Bullshit. Windows was sucessful first, because DOS (Windows' father) ran on the IBM PC and "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". By the time Windows came out, MS OSes were installed on almost every non-Apple PC made, which is why it continued to be so successful.

  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:21AM (#34268162)
    Everything we've always said here about avoiding monocultures and the need for competition remains true. The phone market is actually much bigger in volume than the PC market, so a number of cultures could flourish and still have good economies of scale. So long as standards are enforced on security and the actual radio and phone parts, it shouldn't matter.
  • Gaming (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:21AM (#34268166) Homepage

    Gaming will play a measurable role in this. As things stand now, iOS is trouncing Android, as far as gaming is concerned. Pretty much the only leg up that Android has is the fact that there are multiple emulators available directly from the market, with no need to mod your phone in any way to use (don't even have to click the "non-marketplace applications" option.)

    Besides that though, iOS is handily beating Android when it comes to gaming. Some developers are finally starting to wake up, and are either porting things over or making things specifically for it. I maintain that until there are more quality games out there for Android, iOS will continue to have a substantial lead.

    Note: I'm not implying that gaming alone is the reason for the divide, but it certainly plays a role.

    • Yes, everyone wants their phone to last 2-3 hours playing Quake on the newest nVidia mobile chipset. Nobody buys a phone to be an information device. Cell phones are slowly killing the Dual Screen and 3DSi, of course; just look at Nintendo's unfathomable sales numbers and you'll realize how very soon they are going to collapse under the weight of imponderable demand.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Pojut (1027544)

        I didn't say a single word about phones vs handhelds for gaming.

        As far as gaming on phones are concerned, check out some of these numbers [macrumors.com]. Keep in mind that article is now a year and a half old.

        Not to mention the elephant in the room. [product-reviews.net]

        I'm not saying that smartphone gaming will ever replace actual handhelds, but they still sell a hell of a lot of copies. To pass them off as being anything other than a growing business is foolish.

        If you compare what is available on Android to what is Available on iOS, the va

      • Except Nintendo is not meeting the demand. Micro-ISVs have had a hard time getting their games published on a Nintendo device. See, for example, Bob's Game [wikipedia.org].
  • Take that, Steve! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:22AM (#34268182) Homepage

    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.

    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:38AM (#34268414) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @12:02PM (#34269820)

      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.

  • Features? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by onion2k (203094) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:26AM (#34268230) Homepage

    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.

  • but that doesn't mean that Google will dominate, too [hbr.org].

  • Thank you for that startling revelation, Captain Wozvious!
  • I think it's been said before but it seems like apple phones are taking the same route that their computers do. I don't think anyone could say that Apple isn't doing well in their business so this isn't criticism of their business practices but if their goal is total domination of the phone market why are they going the same route?
  • He's wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:31AM (#34268310) Journal

    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.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Android doesn't have the advantage of sitting on the #1 piece of hardware like windows had.

      Last I checked, Android ran on dramatically more devices than does iOS, whether you count the number of devices or the number of different types of device. Even if Apple added all intel Macintoshes to the list of candidates Android would probably still outnumber iOS when all was said and done.

    • What won was an architecture. IBM produced a really nice architecture, but it was too expensive for most people, so companies made 'IBM PC compatible' hardware. It was the lower cost competitive market of clones that was the attractive platform. People liked having options to work with different companies without getting locked into a hardware channel that if they ever left would need to be wholly junked. Windows won the PC market vs. other competitors like BE and OS/2 because it supported the most hardware
      • >>>Windows won the PC market vs. other competitors like BE and OS/2 because...

        BE and OS/2 won't run the MS-DOS or windows apps that people were used to using. Fixed that for you. ;-)

        • The evolution of PC-DOS > OS/2 was concurrent with MS-DOS > Windows. People were flocking to compatibles running MS because it was cheaper (and more prevalently pirated) than IBM branded hardware running PC-DOS & OS/2. More software was written for MS because MS was more popular driven by the underlying cost and availability of hardware and OS. The software ecosystem drew even more people in that direction and laid the foundation for their familiarity, but the core remains the cost and availabilit
  • I have owned an iphone 3g, 3gs and an iphone 4.
    Recently the attitude from apple, in my opinion has been worse than Microsoft, some may claim otherwise but the 'our way or the highway' and general attitude specifically from Jobs himself in emails to people (on the occassions they leak out) is just awful.

    The overall lock in bugged me a little but overall I was generally quite happy with my iphone, the itunes aspect I detested mind you.
    Every now and then something would bug me, for example - at work when suppo

    • Re: (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 t

  • by gmuslera (3436)
    Could be more players in the near future to take into account. Even if don't win, having a visible 3rd choice, maybe even more open than Android, could be good for all.
  • If someone makes a phone with the hardware quality and features the iphone has - not plasticy feeling junk - and gets Android on there, you're cooking with gas.

    For the record, MS dominated because there was ONE common platform. This included sound and video standards. Remember IRQ conflicts? EMM?

    DirectX ended that and opened the door to dominance for Windows on the desktop for entertainment.

    Right now the iphone continues to make the competition feel like junk.. and it has a solid, consistent API feature set

  • by symbolset (646467) * on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:35AM (#34268368) Journal

    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.

  • by Eponymous Coward (6097) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:36AM (#34268380)

    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.

    • by FooAtWFU (699187)
      They might lose out on significant potential revenues if all the mobile Developers Developers Developers start coding for Android by default, instead of jumping through App Store hoops... either through apps, or by the phone becoming marginally less popular.

      Not doom and gloom, sure, but less than ideal for Apple.

      • by Eponymous Coward (6097) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @11:29AM (#34269242)

        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.

  • The title says it all.
  • //Implementation

    bool IsGoogleEvil(){

    if ( facebook.com has mysterious bugs and compatibility issues in some future upgrade of Android) {

    return true;

    }

    return false;

    }

  • by adosch (1397357) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:41AM (#34268464)

    I think hardware architecture has a lot to do with this, too. Any good embedded engineering focus company can design their hardware and work with it with Android. Why? Because everyone knows the OS capabilities of the Linux kernel and how portable it is, that makes it easy. Woz has a point, but just a small one, Windows was dominant because it worked across the multitude of PC platforms and wasn't tied to specific hardware (al la RISC and Apple) Although Apple did have it's selling points, anything that's more encompassing that doesn't lock a consumer down is going to get tried and, more times than none, chosen over the competitor that doesn't.

    Today, however, Apple makes some pretty bad-ass and inferior products that 'wow' you on functionality and usability from a UI perspective. I myself own a few device with iOS on them and their UI experience alone is worth the product. Android OS is just too portable not to use and it's using the Linux kernel; that alone gets you over the barrier and into competition because anyone can slap it on whatever hardware they want with for less reason and stand up a working product.

  • by hahn (101816) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:47AM (#34268528) Homepage
    because there's no finish line. One can only hope to dominate for as long as possible. I agree that Android will probably become the most dominant mobile OS in the next few years, but that hardly means iOS is going to become insignificant. Windows dominates still, but as everyone can see Apple's hardly hurting financially with OS X. There's plenty of room in the market for two mobile OS's.
  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:52AM (#34268614)

    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.

  • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot AT worf DOT net> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @10:58AM (#34268710)

    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.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...