The iPhone drastically redefined the smartphone market including the competitors that followed it. Hard for me to swallow that its effect on the world has been negligible.
Nope. It doesn't mean "reaches the most people". It means "has the most impact on the world". I think that Android will be the technology that allows people in poorer places of the world to have the internet - and thus, knowledge, and thus, power - in their pocket. That is going to change the world in a significant way.
Even something as simple as this: the internet may have information on the best way to treat sick cattle, or how to best treat certain crops. Heck, in more developed areas, it may cut the reaction time of aid services drastically.
(you already see this happening in Kenya, as linked in the article: http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/16/80-android-phone-sells-... ).
If you don't think Android is copying, take a look at pre-iPhone Android prototypes.
Really? I guess we can wait and see, or we can already start attributing accolades to Android that have not happened yet. I still see people bringing up Xerox Parc all the time with respect to the GUI, so maybe where UI inspiration comes from is relevant?
> I still see people bringing up Xerox Parc all the time
> with respect to the GUI, so maybe where UI inspiration
> comes from is relevant?
On a practical note, battery life matters in impoverished regions, best of luck with your "might last 24 hours, 36 if you're really lucky" Android handset.
Your second paragraph is warm and fuzzy nonsense, you should be ashamed of yourself for writing it.
Smartphones are designed for the needs of the developed world, the less developed world has it's requirements too, I doubt that internet enabled smart phones are high on the list.
And those alleged $80 handsets, how long exactly until they break and require servicing? Google "android failure rate", (less than e.g. iPhones, you can check), compare it those to conventional mobile phones.
However I do think smartphones are a logical and valuable extension of cell phones in developing countries, not in that they improve communication but in that they make "offline" information more readily available, things like medical knowledge applications are not really possible on a "dumbphone" (limited screen real estate and controls) but a smartphone can replace stacks of books, can be carried and can be kept "current" by updating its applications a few times a year.
I see value in that, lots of it.
Oh, and $80 handsets are not even close to fixing this, the majority of sub-saharan africa (in terms of population) lives below the UN's poverty threshold. Which is under $2/day.
I see these $80 handsets going to the "upper crust" of these societies more than to the poorest segments.
Wrong. Most of the third world has excellent cell phone service and they're using cell phones for far more stuff than we do. In Kenya, for instance, you can make small payments using your regular, non-smart cell phone.
> of course, little money, so there are few consumers to target ads at
They have advertising in the third world as well. I doubt that's because there's no money going around.
> On a practical note, battery life matters in impoverished regions, best of luck with your "might last 24 hours, 36 if you're really lucky" Android handset.
This needs to be solved, agreed. Chances are, however, that the phones that solve this problem will run some form of Android.
> This needs to be solved, agreed. Chances are, however, that the phones that solve this problem will run some form of Android.
It is worth noting that some Android phones are already doing impressive things on this front. See, for example, the Samsung Replenish (that can slowly charge from sunlight with an alternative battery cover): http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/10/samsung-replenish-review/
If Microsoft buys Android instead of Google and keeps it proprietary the third world still gets cheap linux-based smartphones.
If Apple doesn't release the iPhone real webkit browsers still make it into phones based on linux (and Opera Mobile's compressed web is probably superior for many third world data rates anyway). Maybe it takes a bit longer for touch ui to popularize but that's not indispensable to accessing the web knowledge base.
If Microsoft buys Android instead of Google
I don't think that would ever happen. MS had its own mobile OS way before Android existed, and it suffers somewhat from NIH syndrome.
What's not really cool is MG Siegler criticizing Android's open-ness by means of some weird roundabout mockery of a non-event. He's so extremely smug in his post criticizing Android about something that iOS is orders of magnitude worse at any way you slice it. If you like iOS you should be glad there is viable competition to keep Apple honest because competition is good for everyone. Without competition to Apple the future is a world where you do what Apple says you can do, and you pay out the ass for it. I love Apple stuff, but even I'm not fool enough to believe they have my best interests at heart now and forever more.