2011: The Year Android Explodes | Hacker News Reader

2011: The Year Android Explodes

techcrunch.com

75 pointsdave161949 comments

I can’t help but think sometimes that it looks as if Google actually did the carriers a huge favor in the long-run because they’ve taken many of the bells and whistles that drove users to the iPhone in the first place and opened them up for the carriers to use as glittering lures to rope customers back into their traps.

Remember the ever-half-joking, half-serious talk of open-source zealots of the mythical, promised "year of Linux on the desktop"? Strange indeed how the first truly mass-market Linux distribution ended up skipping the desktop entirely, and then excelling at restricting users.

Linux has been on the mass-market for a long time. It has been used well and it has been used badly, but it indeed has never been used on the mass-market desktop.

The carriers (again, in the U.S. in particular) are using Android’s openness to perform many of their same old tricks.

This is just incredibly woolly thinking, if not actually disingenuous.

Carriers have power to influence or dictate handset features because carrier promotions are the primary means of distribution for handsets, because they (not the handset manufacturers) own the consumer relationship, and because carrier subsidies are the only way anyone but power users will buy any but the cheapest phones. (This is true in the UK, and seems to be even more true in the US.) They'll exercise that power in some way.

In the case of dumbphones they do so by having their own brand dominate the manufacturer's, so consumers associate with their carrier instead of their handset manufacturer.

With "closed" smartphones (whatever "open" and "closed" mean, but let's assume the iPhone is "closed") they used to do so by only allowing customised and branded variants of the phones onto their networks. The iPhone was the first carrier-sold smartphone to take a stand against carrier customisation. This is one explanation for why the iPhone was so successful: most people's experience with every previous smartphone was actually of variants loaded with carrier crapware.

The iPhone is a desirable handset, and Apple has the marketing skills and brand to reach consumers directly, which takes back some of the bargaining power from the carriers, but it's hardly out from under their yoke. Most obvious piece of evidence: AT&T exclusivity in the US. The features you can use over WLAN but not 3G are also very likely to be carrier-influenced.

So how exactly does the "openness" of Android, whatever that means, help the carriers? They can read the source code... but why bother when they can dictate features directly to the handset manufacturers? They can install apps on the phones, even write custom apps... oh wait, they were doing that already. It's plausible Android might ship with some nicely documented compiler flags for carriers to switch off the features they don't want, rather than their engineers having to actually dive into the source drop they got from the handset manufacturer and disable the features themselves, but other smartphone platforms have been doing that for the last ten years - and anyway nobody is claiming Android is open because of its nicely documented feature killswitches.

The actual situation is that Android phones are getting loaded with carrier crapware and nerfs not because they're "open" (whatever that means), but because that's what's happened to all phones throughout history. The iPhone is an exception to some extent, not because it's "closed" (whatever that means), but because of Apple's ingenious strategy of actually giving a shit about the user experience, not to mention their world-class marketing department. The only way this ridiculous TechCrunchism makes any sense at all is if you're not really talking about "closed" vs "open", but "iPhone" vs "not iPhone".

So although the author protests that he has no skin in the game, this silly argument is actually yet another instance of the standard fanboy cry: "Why won't all these other handset companies just admit that Apple has won, and move into some other industry like flowerpots?" (Which is pretty irritating to anyone who doesn't think the game is over yet.)

Speaking of disingenuous crap:

1. Just because currently the "carrier subsidized phone" model is the working one, it a. doesn't mean this will continue once the smartphone is prevalent and people start to understand the use cases and b. may actually be more about carrier lock in that seeding the market.[1]

2. Closed and open and well defined. Quit pretending they are not well understood terms -- fuzzy edges does not mean the whole term is useless.[2]

3. The part where you commentgasm about apple experiences makes me suspect you are astroturfing. Or even worse, are a goddamn fanboi

[1] This is wooly thinking, when you don't consider completely reasonable alternatives. More or less by definition. +

[2] This is disingenuous thinking, once again by definition. +

+ Obviously you are just trolling with your hypocrisy.

If the definitions of open and closed are so well understood, I'm sure someone will be kind enough to post them here, or at least link to them. :)

Also, that's the first time I've been called an Apple fanboy. In fact given my concluding paragraph I'm amused you could draw that conclusion. (FWIW I don't own a single Apple product.)

I think the argument goes that usually "walled garden" and "give a damn about the user" are inseparable. If that's true then Google did a disservice to users and it's showing as carriers exert more weight.

Now I'm not totally convinced that they are inseperable, moreover I'd say that even had Google done the "walled garden" method they'd still not have the clout and balls to fight the carriers like Apple did/does (who else could?). That all said, though, in the larger dialogue comparing the smartphone philosophies of Google and Apple where things like open and closed are used mostly as inaccurate rhetoric tools the empirical evidence that carriers add a bunch of often undesirable drift to most phones they carry is a huge punch to Android and it's easy to scramble to explain it away as an open/closed effect. Whatever that means.

My impression of your closing paragraph is that you may be looking a bit too hard for that sentiment – I've seen it and been annoyed by it too, but I don't see it in Siegler's post. If anything, it's the opposite, equally annoying sentiment that the game is over because Android's destiny is now manifest. The game is far from over, though, and I don't see anyone credibly claiming otherwise.

I read Siegler's post as basically an attempt by him to reconcile those two annoying sentiments, both of which I detected in the text. They both share the misconceptions that this is a two-horse race, and that "winning" is meaningful in a market which (due to the inertia caused by factors like carrier behaviour) takes years to evolve.

One interesting point Siegler didn't make is that Google is making some modest strides toward weakening the carriers' grip on the handset market (e.g. selling Nexus One unlocked themselves, and Nexus S unlocked through vendors). Sure, they're niche devices and the Nexus One direct sales model didn't work out that well, but they're testing the water. I'm pretty sure their goal there is to increase general consumer acceptance of buying unlocked, carrier-untouched phones. And that helps every smartphone maker, perhaps especially Apple (who probably stand the best chance of selling large numbers of $600 handsets without carrier subsidy).

Apple themselves could have made this play, by offering (and promoting) the iPhone unlocked at launch (or since), but they chose instead to work with the carriers (a reasonable decision to maximise short-term success).

People in the U.S. should really look into sensible telecoms regulation like the entire rest of the world has.

Because your current preferred solution to carrier abuses, which appears to be that everyone should buy iPhones, is insane. It's Sarah Palin "Death Panel" level craziness, which is apparently only obvious to those of us outside the U.S.

Also, your irony is at least a decade late, you should read up on Tivoization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization) which qualifies as mass-market linux without final user control, but the debate about people using open code for purposes you don't like (e.g. guiding missiles, mass-surveillance) goes back much further.

Tivoization is an offensive term that implies Tivo did something wrong.

TiVo is taking software that was intended to be and remain free and betraying the spirit of its license by preventing end-users from changing the devices they own.

While I won't say it's wrong or unjustifiable, I prefer more open and friendly devices and, so, I don't - and probably won't - own a TiVo, as I don't want to enable such conduct.

    TiVo is taking software that was intended to be
    and remain free and betraying the spirit 
    of its license

Linus Tolvards himself said he has no problem with Tivo, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but just because somebody chose an open-source license doesn't mean it adheres to any political agenda you happen to agree with.

The term implies no moral judgment, it simply is used to describe the technical process/effect.

The term can be used by detractors in a negative fashion, and the term can be used in a positive way by people who might be interested in doing it themselves. It's a word, it has not political opinions.

It is telling that you assume it has inherent negative connotations though.

Richard Stallman coined the term and I quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

     One major danger that GPLv3 will block 
     is tivoization ... The manufacturers of 
     these computers take advantage of the freedom 
     that free software provides, but they don't 
     let you do likewise.

If this doesn't have a negative connotation, that I don't know what does.

Tivoization means "to do what Tivo did".

Some people disagree with what Tivo did, that doesn't make the word itself "offensive", nor does it imply wrongdoing, nor is it really a connotation, more a denotation.

If they'd went with "digital slavery" or "software piracy" then I could see where you were coming from.

Forget about the phone market for a second.

What I want is for Android to replace Windows Mobile 5 in all those annoying Symbol barcode scanner and other data entry devices - ever priced them out? $1500-2000 for a basic model on a dead-end platform with horrible dev support.

I really want to know where are the industrial portables based on Android or another unix variant? Imagine being able to write a web app with hooks into all the data entry bells and whistles that a device like that could have.

I've wondered this too, considering the ease with which you can clone ASOP and throw it on an ARM device. Perhaps it is something like the proverbial "enterprise" software markets, where sales trump technology?

This is already happening with the iPod Touch.

I'm currently working on a similar project for a large retail company. We're using the Linea-Pro [1] cradle, which has both a barcode and magnetic strip reader. (Same device as used in Apple stores.)

[1] http://www.ipclineapro.com/

Wow! That's awesome. Any idea how expensive the cradle is? I hate spending $1500 for an MC70 with crappy touchscreen.

I wasn't able to find LineaPro pricing, but Adwords found a competitor: LightSpeed - http://www.xsilva.com/en/store.html

Entry mobile device hardware is $1000.

I think the cradle goes for about $500. Add any iPod Touch and you're still under a grand for each device.

They have a very nice Cocoa API for the device as well. I've had a blast developing for it.

LightSpeed is actually an entire retail service stack which uses the Linea-Pro cradle for their mobile platform. Most of the cost is licensing their retail software. Your $1,000 quote is a bit off...

From the pricing page:

    In order to purchase a Bundle including the 
    LightSpeed Mobile Hardware Kit, at least 2
    user licenses need to be added to your order. [1]

So that's a baseline of $1,823. When you toggle on the "Mobile Hardware Kit" the price jumps by $549, which sounds about right for the hardware and setup.

I do contract iOS dev work, so feel free to ping me if you're looking into this sort of thing.

[1] http://www.xsilva.com/en/store.html

Until they start competing in price instead of features, expect to pay the same $1500.

the advantage the Symbols have over iPhones though is they're practically unbreakable.

You already get ruggidized Android phones, like the Motorola Defy, but if you're building the whole platform (rather than just a dongle for an iDevice) you could probably go even further e.g. lose the screen.

I thought most of those still ran Palm OS... at least the ones I´ve paid attention to while it stores sure look like it.

I'm currently working in this space and I can honestly tell you it's not a conspiracy or anything...these manufacturers are just 4-5 years behind the curve and are just waking up to the possibilities of using an Android-type O/S on these devices. To be fair, Android isn't really ready to jump into the custom embedded GUI area just yet either. It's almost there.

A lot of them see Android and think either a) it's a phone O/S, b) I can get a GUI up and running just as well with WinCE6, or c) I don't want customers installing custom apps on my barcode reader.

The more enterprising engineers that are mobile O/S knowledgeable are busy writing apps and/or making bank by consulting.

And forget Symbol. They're owned by Motorola now so it'll be a few years before they figure things out.

I recently switched from an iPhone to an Android and haven't looked back, even though I still see the iPhone as a best-in-class device. The best Android phones are just a few percentage points shy of the iPhone in usability, and the availability of Flash for Android alone makes up for that, IMHO. Even though I have a healthy dislike for Flash.

Add to that the fact that you can get an app written and deployed for Android in a fraction of the time it would take you on the iPhone...

- Because you're not required to use horrid tools like Objective C

- Because there are no imperious App Store overlords deciding the fate of your app's life or approval

- Because you don't need to make a several-thousands-of-dollars investment in Apple hardware and software

...and I think it's likely that Android will eclipse iPhone, not just in numbers of handsets (many orders of magnitude more coming for Android), but in mindshare, pop culture relevance, developer sentiment, and every other thing.

The iPhone will always be the phone that launched the smartphone revolution, and Apple and Steve Jobs have been well rewarded for it. Android to me represents the democritization of the iPhone, and the democritization of designer tech has always been the bane of Steve Jobs. Put another way: iOS devices are going to seem much less compelling when they've been copied, perfected, rebranded, and sold for half the price. It's Mac vs. PC all over again.

Just a friendly reminder to whoever downvoted me: you're really not supposed to downvote on HN for differences of opinion. I understand a lot of people have a lot invested in Apple, but having used and developed for both devices, this is my best, somewhat educated but possibly incorrect, guess as to the future of these platforms. And none of this is really new. So rather than anonymously downvoting, why don't you venture an opinion of your own?

I didn't downvote you, but having read your comment I imagine some of the motivations of those who did were:

- 'Horrid tools like Objective-C' is a value statement made without justification.

- 'Imperious App Store overlords' sounds rather like a straw man.

- 'several-thousands-of-dollars investment in Apple hardware and software' is inaccurate.

The problem in general with iOS vs Android is that is has indeed become like Mac vs PC, in that individuals who have decided on their allegiance feel the need to promote their chosen platform in comments, often through (probably unintentional) exaggeration. I'm not being patronising here, I'm quite sure I do the same.

Question: what makes Objective-C horrible? I quite like the way it manages to remain moderately performant while also giving many of the benefits of dynamic languages. (Personally, I find Java horribly restrictive, but that's a separate discussion.)

Also: "several thousands of dollars" is incorrect. The minimum is about $1,000 for a Mac Mini (perfectly good for most development) and two testing iPod touches, but you might even have some of those to start with. (And that's all assuming you don't get anything used/refurbished/etc, which is another reasonably-sized discount.)

Wait, is this article about phones or the author? Is it mandatory at tech crunch now to ensure each feature has the maximum amount of smugness allowed by law?

By MG's usual standards the post can actually be called borderline reasonable.

The trouble with getting a handle on the mobile phone market is that most analysts often pick up only the US market or the smart phone market and form their conclusions based on it.

Another issue is when most of the online discussions on the iPhone/Android competition turns into an all-out brawl with only the usual talking points thrown in.

I use a Galaxy S I9000. I like the phone. It is not perfect. I could probably have aimed for the iPhone, but it was at least $100 more where I live (India). Keep this price in mind, it is very important.

What is the cheapest iPhone you can get today, without a contract? Most of us India buy the phones pretty much at the full price. Even if I assume that the iPhone will be priced at half of what it costs here, it would still be more expensive than some of the Android phones made by the local manufacturers here. I don't ever see Apple doing an iPhone Starter Edition.

There were some 100 million-plus mobile phones that were sold in India in 2009. I am sure that 99% of those were not either a Samsung Galaxy S or an iPhone. Between iOS and Android, the odds are much better on Android to tap into those potential 99 million sales.

This is the reason why Android will grow even stronger next year. But it won't be at the cost of the iPhone.

I do not get what the problem is with having carrier applications on the phones. It is non-sensical to argue that things forced on you, the consumer, by a corporation A are bad but things forced by corporation B on the same consumer are somehow magical.

Leaving aside everything - let's stick to the case of Android carrier customizations and their impact on user experience. I have used 2 different Android smartphones and my wife has used 2. I had a Nexus One and now have a T-Mobile G2. My wife had a EVO and now has Epic 4G. We never felt like the carrier customizations (or lack thereof in case of Nexus One) made any significant negative impact to our user experience. We actually liked some of the differentiations of both software and hardware (Music/Video player and physical keyboard on Epic, HTC UI on the EVO etc.). Having a few extra icons or having the Sprint Navigation app instead of Google Navigation wasn't actually a big deal in any way.

Plus, for those who prefer close-to-pure-google experience - there is Nexus S or G2. If you are on VZW and are a bit technical or know someone who is, Droid Incredible and Cyanogen is another choice. Optimus S is also close to stock Android and on multiple carriers.

For years Windows computers have shipped with vendor customizations and no one seems to have cared enough to give Apple the 50% market share. Microsoft had made some effort recently to work with the vendors to fix the outright problematic stuff and you can buy a laptop with clean Windows install from Sony for example.

The problem on Android is not nearly as bad or annoying as Windows bloatware and there are plenty of choices available that go either way - fully stock to fully customized. It's not as if the customized phones are bogged down to the point that they don't function or anything like that. It's just a minor inconvenience if you want to make it one.

So who is complaining about Android customizations? Technical people with a certain taste to see uniform world view. The reviewers that measure everything by Apple standards. Normal users don't seem to be caring - they buy one Android phone and use it for 2 years - if it doesn't work they are just going to return it and buy something else and it is very much doubtful that users are returning Android phones because of the carrier customizations.

On the other hand - if I don't happen to like iTunes on iPhone I have no other choice in the iPhone land. If I need wireless syncing I need to wait. With Android I can choose which media player I like - Samsung's or HTCs, which wireless sync I like - DoubleTwist Airsync or WinAmp etc. So I would argue that the benefits of Android approach pretty much outweigh the little consistency issues it poses.

EDIT : I actually went and read the original article and it struck me that the main point it made was the dawn of ultra cheap ($85 retail) Android dual core smartphones for the 3rd world! If it does work out well (and I am not sure why it wouldn't) Nokia and other dumb phone makers are in for huge trouble and we are going to see Windows vs. Mac all over again with the iPhone finding itself restricted as a luxury brand at the best and at worse they will see some erosion even in that category. Apple now a days do most of the things on their own - including the CPUs. It will be hard for them to keep up with the likes of Nvidia/Broadcom/Samsung who will bring out dual core CPUs for Android handsets - not quite PPC vs Intel but sort of.

I've made three well-meaning attempts at starting this article but I can't get past its innovative distributed introduction. Someone needs to send MG the memo that free-writing is only the first step in developing an orgnanized argument that others can follow.

Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers...

I was just thinking that all of these Windows vs. Mac comparisons are focused on market share and end-user-y things, but what really enabled Windows to dominate for so long was it's appeal to developers. I have dabbled in iPhone development, and not done any android development, so I'm not qualified to judge -- but from the outside it seems that there is a lot more interest in iPhone than android for developers (based on what I read on HN and elsewhere, and the kinds of freelance jobs I've been offered over the past year). Also, seems that it's easier (well, more straightforward anyway) to make money selling apps on the iPhone vs. android.

I'd love to hear thoughts on this matter from people who have actually developed for both platforms (or made an informed decision to work with one over the other).

      what really enabled Windows to dominate for so long 
      was it's appeal to developers

This was a chicken-egg situation: Windows appealed to developers because it was popular. It was popular because it appealed to developers.

It got there through other means, like IBM's endorsement, timing, marketing and indeed an open SDK (contrary to other alternatives at that time).

About iPhone development: I had to buy a Mac-mini just so I could run XCode. But all my development for the iPhone starts with PhoneGap (i.e. web apps with some native functionality exposed). I prefer Android just because I can use my favorite tools with it.

I wonder if/when Android will make into automobiles. Could be good for Google. That's a lot of cool analytics and potential eyeballs.

I want an Android tablet / embedded computer on my dash with full screen Google Maps and Navigation. That would be so awesome.

Mixed with the rumored gingerbread AR that'd be amazing in a vehicle. Can't wait to see what Google pulls off with Android.

Android will be in some big high-end German car models in early 2011. There will be downloadable apps, but only from a manufacturer specific market. I don't think there will be any Android branding, so the car owner won't even know it is Android under the hood! So year technically Android, but probably no data, nor eyeballs, flowing back to Google.

Nokia is pushing Meego in this space.

Everyone is pushing in this space.

Every December from 1998 to 2009, we have seen "The next year will be the year of Linux (for the desktop)"

Alas, it never happened.

What really bothers mr is the ad nauseum "Android 4 Eva!!!" [sic] opinions like this is that they treat Android like an homogenous product when clearly it isn't. The iPhone is both a brand and a product. Androi ids... A philosophy.

I've had 3 Android handsets now (HTC Desire, DroidX, Nexus S) and I still find them frustrating, inconsistent and illogical and not something I'd recommend to the non-tech savvy.

Many of the pundits don't seem to realize just how myopic their view is. Example: the ceaseless litany about how crap AT&T is and it is... In NY and SF where you'll find most of the journalists and pundits. Or just how much the simple and ubiquitous UI/UX of iOS matters to most users, far more than the ephemeral notion of an alleged "walled garden" at any rate.

The real story is that one product from one company on only one major carrier (in the US) at the very top end of the markets competes with Android at all. Don't underestimate that brand loyalty. There is an awful lot of unsatisfied demand for the iPhone that won't be realized until other carriers get it and/or the price comes down (which it slowly will).

The idea that Android allows carriers continue to screw their consumers is basically wrong. The carriers have far less power than they did 5 years ago and you can thank Steve Jobs for that. Verizon (in particular) is still kicking this dead horse but it's still a shadow of it's former self.

Fred Wilson is right: Android is good. It's really best for Google more than anyone else.

Scoble is wrong: Android won't kill the iPhone, at least not for the foreseeable future at any rate (but he is right that it is a superior product IMHO).

Predictably this post doesn't even touch on the biggest competitive advantages: the iTunes ecosystem and gaming.

So it is good we have Android to keep Apple honest but, to paraphrase, the news of iPhone's death have been greatly overexaggerated.

You logic is flawed. MacBooks and mac computers have existed far long more than iPhone and their price isn't getting lower. I fail to see why the iPhone, another great premium Apple product, will drop it's price in the future.

Um yes they have. Today you can buy a pretty good spec MBP for $1500. 4 years you'd be spending $3-4k+.

The same applies to Windows laptops. I bought a 17" Dell Inspiron 9400 in 2005-06 for A$3k (actually it was a $4k spec where 2 coupons collided bringing it to about $2.8k). At that time a similar MBP was A$4.5k.

This year I specced a 15" Dell for my sister for $1k. A gaming laptop is under A$2k. My 2009 13" MBP cost A$1800. The top (base) MBP is <A$3k.

Macs have a gentler slope of price decreases as Apple tends to increase the (relative) spec ate the same time but it's a complete lie to say they haven't dropped price.

IMHO the iPhone will be no different.

In fact the first iPod Touches were more expensive than the current batch so it already has happened.

Oh Siegler. Where's the real original article instead of this TC shit. I don't know which is worse, TC's blatant attitude in their posts or Engadget's terrible perspective on everything.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/12/22/2011-will-be-the-year...

At least engadget is witty.

http://blog.yafla.com/The_Biggest_Lie_That_Ever_Was_Told/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com