The Android Explosion: How Google’s Freewheeling Ecosytem Threatens the iPhone | Hacker News Reader

The Android Explosion: How Google’s Freewheeling Ecosytem Threatens the iPhone

wired.com

29 pointspathik9 comments

In another thread here someone mentioned that they have "Lisp fatigue", meaning they're just tired of reading ad infinitum threads about just how great and awesome Lisp is. It's gotten to the point of being repetitive and boring.

I feel exactly the same way about iOS vs Android.

Ultimately, Google is a search and advertising company. From our (disclaimer: I work for Google but have nothing to do with Android) perspective, I believe Android is a stellar success as the more people use the Internet, the more money we make. Android has successfully (IMHO) commoditized the smartphone OS, which is good for everyone who isn't a mobile OS maker.

Apple is a consumer hardware company and a stunningly successful one at that. Android is a means to an end for Google just as iOS is a means to an end for Apple.

So all these "analyses"/opinions basically miss the point because Apple and Google are playing two different games.

What's more, I find Apple coverage to be incredibly shortsighted. Like when the Xoom came out in January and the usual suspects went on about how much better it was than the iPad, missing two key points:

1. Consumers don't compare bullet lists of tech specs; and

2. Apple's successor (the iPad 2) was only 1-2 months out. Both competitors and commenters are constantly chasing Apple's last year's product, seemingly ignorant than Apple is a constantly moving goalpost.

Also, IMHO smartphones are largely irrelevant anyway. The real battleground is tablets and this is one area where Apple has a phenomenal lead. It's my contention that the digital content and app ecosystems are far more important for tablets than phones (since a greater percentage of even smartphone users spend a greater percentage of their time using "standard" functionality, being SMS messaging, phone calls and maps; I believe data on app purchases would back this up).

Android is certainly a stunning success and I believe huge credit goes to Andy Rubin and the executive team. It is second only to search in terms of Google's successes.

Also, IMHO smartphones are largely irrelevant anyway. The real battleground is tablets and this is one area where Apple has a phenomenal lead.

As a mobile dev, I'd like to believe this, because the tablet is a much more interesting dev target. But it still seems to me that smartphones are ubiquitous and increasingly indispensable whereas tablets are still mainly an appealing luxury.

The iPhone, revolutionary as it was, didn’t alter one underlying dynamic: Phone manufacturers—who wanted to make the most capable, feature-rich phones—were still at odds with the carriers that provide the pricey bandwidth to power those features. That had led to conflict between Apple and its carrier partners, especially AT&T. Apple wanted users to take full advantage of the iPhone’s capabilities, but carriers then had to spend billions to keep up with the demand on their overtaxed networks. Android finally rewrote that calculus. Because carriers get a cut of app sales and ad revenue, they stand to make money when subscribers surf the web or download applications. For once, the interests of software designers, manufacturers, carriers, and customers are all aligned.

This is so ridiculously wrong - and anyone who had to do j2me development for applications for all those silver clamshell phones that we all had before the iPhone knows it.

The carriers ALWAYS took a big cut of your application revenue. Wanted to sell a BREW app to Verizon customers? Verizon took a very healthy chunk of your little program's paltry purchase price. What was genuinely different (and refreshingly so) was the iPhone's software market - Apple told the phone companies to go to hell.

Does anyone really remember just how bad all of this was before the iPhone?

The whole embracing and promoting the industrial ugliness of the Droid was a stroke of genius. It was such a good marketing ploy it is sort of surprising to learn that it wasn't intentional.

It could have been intentional. Whoever designed the hardware might well have realized that it was important to be deliberately and obviously different from the iPhone, and that the various managers at Motorola/Verizon/Google just didn't get that until they saw the ad campaign.

Could be, but I've been there at the moment when the first unit finally arrives, and its a total piece of crap compared to the designs. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.

Its surprisingly hard to commission a physical product that looks anything like your designs, at least its seems that way to an outsider like me. It could be that actually getting the original iPhone mass produced, and having it still look good, was as substantial an achievement as the phone itself.

In retrospect I wonder if Google not doing their own phone was in fact a good thing because it gave other parties the confidence to embrace Android while keeping Google away from hardware which isn't their strong point. In many ways it reminds me of Microsoft in the 80s with MS-DOS, although I sort of see iOS as being closer to to the Apple II than the Mac (although I think that analogy feels a bit stretched and is oversimplified).

is it hard to make/design phones that look as bare and minimal as an iphone, or is there some other motivation at work?

beyond having talented industrial designers, i think part of it has to do with apple's status in the industry. think about how many times apple has come out with a product that is not just a repackaging of old technology, but something they worked closely with intel, broadcom, nvidia, etc. to create (or re-engineer and shrink). i don't know that many of those companies would do similar things for smaller hardware vendors that couldn't commit to as much volume.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com