"It's not about pretty icons, Apple fanboys, and its not about business use, Windows Mobile Nerds: its about giving people the true tools to build whatever they want without lame App Store limitations and OS handcuffs. It's about giving phone makers shackled to Symbian and Microsoft's phone OS the chance to build with something different and better and free. And who's going to complain about that?"
That's what John Maloney at Gizmodo thinks, but I don't entirely agree.
I develop for the iPhone, but I'll also develop Android applications and I think pretty icons really do matter, and so do business uses. That's why most people use Windows or Mac OS X as their desktop operating systems, and not Linux.
The first generation iPhone sold pretty well, but was only after the debut of tools like push email that sales of the iPhone 3G soared -- the device became relevant to the business world.
But the most important concern for users is consistency -- of user interface, of operation -- mainly in how the device works for them. Consistency is far more important than the ability to change everything.
For example, there are several alternatives to Internet Explorer on Windows, but the majority of users will never change the default. That's because they are comfortable with consistency -- in this case the same browser is on all Windows machines.
In Japan, the i-mode wireless internet service became extremely popular, not because it was that much better, but because it was consistent across multiple devices, even to the extent of having a special i-mode button on the phone to access services. A consistent, familiar experience, made the product popular.
Another Apple benefit that Google's Android doesn't have is complete control of the hardware. Several Android features are noted as "hardware dependent". And with complete control of the hardware, Apple can push out complete upgrades to every user simultaneously, whenever they want or need to. Android will out of necessity have a more limited upgrade cycle to allow the phone manufacturers to implement and test new code; manufacturers who also have other non-Android phones to deal with as well.
On the negative side though, Apple certainly suffers from control issues, but Google is not entirely innocent either when it comes to that. Apple could go a long way toward more openness and relations with developers, and they should. Google -- a company of developers -- clearly wins that round.
Android has some things that the iPhone doesn't -- the most obvious being the ability to run applications in parallel. It can be a pain on the iPhone when switching apps to have to start again when you switch back to the first one, but this hasn't yet caused me too much consternation. And a geek like me might replace something like the phone application, but I doubt that will benefit the majority of users.
Similar comments were made when Java was introduced; write-once-run-anywhere software that would allow the development of completely open software. But Java has yet to change the world. Android will certainly impress the technophiles, but when it comes to both the business and consumer audiences, I think iPhone still will win over most users.
Larry Borsato has been a software developer, marketer, consultant, public speaker, and entrepreneur, among other things. For more of his unpredictable, yet often entertaining thoughts you can read his blog at larryborsato.com.
More news, commentary, and predictions from The Industry Standard:
- Review: Hands on with HTC's Google phone
- Prediction: The HTC Dream, Google’s Android phone, released by Nov. 10
- Prediction: Apple will ship 10 million iPhones in 2008
- Prediction: Psystar, Mac clone maker, closes down by end of year
- Prediction: Zune Phone announced by end of 2008?
Comments
See Jared Diamonds evaluation of 15th century centralized China and 15th century decentralized Europe for some insight on Androids future potential. No - really.
Whether Android can beat the iPhone remains to be seen…not likely with the first version but it is nice to see a new contender.
I agree with Barsato that pretty icons and business use are important. I would add that attention to detail and design of phones is also important. As a non-developer consumer I want it all. I am considering purchasing the T-mobile Android phone but that fact that it is not immediately compatible with syncing to my Outlook has made me less enthusiastic since this is what my company uses. I don’t see them changing to Google email and calendar any time soon.
Another factor for me as a consumer is what additional applications will be available. In general I find many of the applications available on phones are not that useful. It would be nice to have new applications that would allow you to use your phone to improve your productivity in a more substantial way.
Finally! A real-world view on how things work out here in reality… and not some socialist, hippie, open-source rant.
Apparently MacWorld is not letting us comment on this over there.
Apple's iPhone and the Android phone will attract very different customers. Apple's iPhone attracts people who will actually pay for applications. The Android phone attracts people who expect their software to be free. And if there are any Windows stragglers on Android, they expect they can pirate their software.
What platform would be most attractive to a developer who wants to make money? The iPhone trumps Android of this one. The iPhone App Store makes tons of money for the successful developers. That is a huge carrot for developers on the iPhone.
Yes, not every application for the iPhone is useful to every user. But LOOK at how many applications users actually download for the iPhone. I find it astounding that myself and many of my friends have downloaded OVER ONE HUNDRED applications each for the iPhone. And we keep on buying and downloading. Applications for the iPhone are ADDICTING. What developer does not LOVE seeing this.
How many applications do Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, and Linux do users actually download? Very very few. In ONE MONTH, the iPhone users have downloaded more applications than all of the users on all of the other cell phone companies combined have downloaded in a year.
What platform, then, makes REAL MONEY for its developers? The iPhone trumps the Android.
A platform that makes real money is nice for developers, but will the users care? Will users prefer a phone where most of the apps are slightly uglier, slightly clunkier, but mostly free? I'm sure that the App Store will be brimming with toys, but an unscientific survey of the personality types of people I know... most of them prefer (all other things roughly equal) getting things for free over paying developers. I note they haven't bought Apple products, but use simpler phones with the features already loaded they wanted. Maybe I run with the wrong crowd?
Post new comment