IPhone vs. Android: Will Apple-Microsoft history repeat itself?
rpaliwal.blogspot.com
rpaliwal.blogspot.com
Developing for Android involves their odd little JVM; Objective C on a more traditional UNIX architecture is more familiar to more developers.
(A development Mac is a bit of a roadblock, but not much.)
The 'Apple tax' in the handheld space is negligible. It's more in line with the absolute value of 'apple tax' in the mp3 market than in the laptop market; let alone the desktop market of 1984.
Being even just a little clunkier is a much bigger deal when you're talking about very short session times.
But perhaps the biggest difference: Apple no longer particularly cares. If they make mad profit off the top 10% of the market, they won't waste a thought toward what's powering the other 90%.
Ultimately, I feel that if I buy a device, it's mine, and I should be the only one deciding what may or may not be installed on it.
All android phones that I have seen are rather clunky and outdated in appearance, IMHO. Put android on something like the palm pre, and you have a real win.
On top of that if you look at the HTC Hero review at TechCrunch (http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/07/20/review-htc-hero/), it looks like a pretty sweet device with interface clearly approaching iPhone and Pre and in some cases taking their best elements.
Like Windows, Android doesn't have to invent, just make sure it can follow iPhone & Pre innovations closely.
And yes, largely because I feel comfortable with the level of customization I can do to my G1, and if I wanted it even further unlocked, I can purchase a developer version for fairly cheap.
Oh, and the 5+ years I've been with t-mobile, they've taken care of me many many times. I don't think AT&T could touch the support I get from T-Mobile, who repays you for customer loyalty.
And macs were crushed in the early 90's. Apple was lucky to have survived.
The truth is that not all users share your aesthetic sense. Lots of folks are swayed by features that an iPhone user might think are meaningless checklist items (like a physical keyboard!). There will always be a market for the iPhone, I'm sure. But its aesthetics alone will not preserve its dominance. It has to actually work better. This doesn't help.
Is Android as slick as the iPhone? No, not yet. Nor are the market apps as numerous or featureful as those in the app store. But it's close, and over time it's getting closer. Apple needs to compete on features, not lock-in.
That and the fact that Apple's CEO in the 90's switched the focus from great user experience to 'attack all possible markets' with a dozen different (often competing with its other products) is, I'd say, the main reason why they fared so bad in the 90's...
There are a lot of reasons for Apple's failures in the 90s. Many of their wounds were self-inflicted. They f The original System 8 was finally incomplete when it was cancelled well after it was expected to ship. It's successor also died in the womb or crib. Jobs's team finally got things in line by creating a roadmap for improving the legacy OS, readying OS X, and smoothing the tradition between the two.
With competent leadership, Apple might have fared better in the later 90s, but I still think Microsoft would have remained the biggest benificiary of the growth of the market. Wintel just had better looking upfront costs at a time when people didn't think as much about ongoing costs. This led to a positive feedback on economies of scale, installed base, and software availability.
Also, I'd avoid putting too much stock into: 2009=1991, iPhone=Mac and Android=Wintel. Yeah, there are some similarities, but there are big differences.
For one thing, AppStore scandals aside, Apple's managment seems to be much better suited for competing with a strong rival than it was back then.
Second, the customers are different. Part of the reason for Wintel's success is that they captured a growing # of departmental and institutional buyers. The decision makers weren't, by and large, the end users. They were more focused on up front costs. If they were even thinking of ongoing costs, many probably saw it as a way to grow their empire further. Phones are a consumer item. The buyers are almost always also the end-users, or at least in the same family. They have different priorities than corporate buyers in the early 90s.
Phones are also cheaper now than PCs were then, and people can buy an iPhone in the US for $99.
Fourth, the cost of the phone is just a small par of the total cost of ownership. The majority is the cost of cell service + a data plan. An android phone isn't going to be any cheaper, unless Google subsidizes the cost of the service plan with mobile advertising revenues (something that will likely bring antitrust scrutiny).
Fifth, the hardware ecosystems are different. Apple largely uses the same chips and ODMs for the iPhone as anyone else. That means they get to take advantage of many of the same economies of scale as any other handset maker.