We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly
a16z.com
a16z.com
I say that he's looking in the wrong place because to "democratize the mobile operating system" is to ignore a critical part of what makes mobile worthwhile. All those cloud services and apps that do useful things for you. How about we democratize the cloud instead? There should be no real reason I can't point my iOS device at my own infrastructure to co-ordinate sync, backup and sharing of all my stuff (instead of iCloud). Must I sign up for yet another third-party service/app just to provide me with an incremental feature? Why can't I just install apps into my own little cloud backend that my phone can connect to and do useful things for me? Have that be open for developers to target and maybe I can pay them for their work. Then it matters less what physical hardware I happen to be using. Of course, you can only access the plethora of sensors with a native app but most services I use don't need this much context. In any case, this is a concept many people are beginning to advocate for with a variety of reasons. FWIW, some of us are taking a clean-slate approach to tackle the distributed systems issues http://amirchaudhry.com/brewing-miso-to-serve-nymote/
I want this as much as you and everyone else who upvoted you, but the problem is there is no obvious business model in it. Sure, techies will pay (app.net?), but the general population doesn't care enough to put out money for this.
I think it's a mistake to assume that nobody will pay for such services given the vast number of people online now. It's just a matter of appropriate market segmentation [1]. Business models emerge as people begin to use things, and we should remember that Google didn't have one for a long time (neither did Facebook).
[1] The teenage version of me didn't give a damn and only used free things but the adult version of me has a much better understanding of the trade-offs I'm making (and I also have disposable income now). I don't wish to become a sysadmin, which means I have very few options.
That's why this is really a distributed systems problem. In order for an app-developer to build such an app, the deeper problems around deployment, sync, and identity/connectivity need to be resolved. Developers just need something to target that provides the appropriate components. That's what the toolstack I previously linked is trying to solve. Without that, we're stuck with requiring someone else to provide the central system/aggregator. Clearly this is a non-trivial problem but if it can be cracked then it'll be as impactful as the opening up of the Web was.
I supposed it could be, or a UI problem....it all depends on the architecture of the code and how you choose to define the problem. Regardless, it's all certainly feasible and possibly will be done sooner or later, it's just a matter of when. Are you familiar with the Diaspora project from a few years back?
Thinking about this, I wonder if the economics would work given the ad-supporter/loss-leading aspects of some of these services. Still, interesting.
What I'd like to see, and hardly anyone is talking about, is the cooperative model for this. Servers run by a community of interest; paid staff to manage the things which really require central clearing (anti-spam and anti-abuse in particular) and develop the system; users paying on an ongoing basis and being given a voice and a vote in the way the system is run. Federation with similar systems.
Bits of this exist already, but only on a very small scale and with the political/organisational infrastructure - basically individuals running Minecraft servers and the like.
I suppose I could gather thousands of recruits for something like this if I said "blockchain" a lot, but in truth it's the opposite: a system that requires users to trust individual other humans.
Well there is a real reason, you never own the iphone you have. You never have control of the device, Apple does. They have final say in what can be built to run on it, what can run on it, what you can install, what OS you can run, whether you get updates, and what the phone does. You have no control over it, at all.
So don't act surprised when Apple takes advantage of absolute power to screw you over.
At that, I know owncloud exists for iOS, so you could just use that, at least for the bullet points you mentioned, not so much for the sensors-aware network of devices.
If an app could be installed on a server and sandboxed (so for example multiple apps could share an ElasticSearch instance without being aware of each other) this would be a big step forward.
Yeah, I'm not clear how excited he'd be if Microsoft was a major player in mobile. I think if that were the case, we'd just get the same article but with 'triopoly' instead.
Also, did he say custom boot animations? I don't think that's what is holding us back... better examples would strengthen his argument
Sure the developing world still needs very cheap phones, and they require software close to the hardware.
But in the developed world phones and tables get closer to a full PC every day. They basically are tiny PCs.
And exactly how the web made Windows and OSX, and Linux less interesting, so it will make the mobile OSs less interesting.
Because even if you can't get close to the hardware, and might require user permissions to access hardware features, still a java script and HTML5 based web app can do almost anything you want on mobile hardware. History keeps repeating itself.
See slides 11 & 30 at http://a16z.com/2014/10/28/mobile-is-eating-the-world/
To whoever downvoted my earlier comment (if it wasn't the parent), please explain why. I don't have a strong opinion on app vs web so I'm keen to see data.
I do not agree entirely.
Do you people like apps? Or do people like these bookmarks* to things they can get to easily? May even be a web app for all they care, can they just click and get to it.
I don't think that means they "love" mobile apps. It's just that on mobile, web browsing is an inferior experience. Take a look at this data on the top apps: http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Data-Mine/Top-25-Mobile-App...
Personally, I'd rather use the complete websites than mobile sites or apps. I'd also like to have better choices when it comes to mobile browsers (more on this later). I'd also like to have better tab management on mobile.
Browser choice on Android seems to be Chrome, Firefox and Webviews. Firefox never ran well on my phone and for some reason or another doesn't render sites properly. Webviews based browsers also don't render sites properly and they are lacking support for some web technologies.
Chrome is the only properly working browser on my phone and it always has me logged into Google sites and resumes from my previous session. Every time I use it I feel like I'm naked in a public place. And, every site has to be a longterm commitment as there is no easy way to close multiple tabs.
TLDR:
I use apps mostly because mobile browsing still sucks. I bet I'm not alone with this.
1) Native apps were better than web apps because of native performance was better.
And as you say, we're seeing smart phones become mini PCs. I'm actually typing this on a PC I built years ago on which I still play the latest football and strategy games, but my girlfriend's smartphone has 1 gigabyte more RAM (3gb Nexus), twice as many cores at a similar speed and a 50% higher resolution, for a quick anecdotal example. I know it's apples and oranges technically but smartphones are becoming insanely powerful. And with the web evolving (things like GPU driven CSS animations being commonplace now) the majority of non-game apps are going to run just fine on PC-like hardware on phones in the next years with no performance difference from native. And with WebGL becoming the standard, one can say the same for many games now, too.
2) Native always had more access to the hardware. Things like the contact list, photos, file system, social accounts etc.
Here too we're seeing the web evolve, but we're also seeing hybrid frameworks like Cordova or Ionic become very sophisticated which allow plugins to deal with native features using web technologies. Of course this hybrid app still goes through the app store in which Apple/Google are all powerful. But even on the web we're seeing tons of integrations for the core functionality like accessing the camera.
I think 1) will be a no-brainer, native won't be much better than web. 2) will see a difference for quite some time, but here the difference is shrinking, too. Things like the camera or geolocation have been possible for quite some time.
My wife uses her iPad for one thing. The browser.
Needless to say I am very interested in the Firefox phone.
Please no, this would only yield to more bloatware. The move of Google is smart, moving the OS away from OEMs. [Most] manufacturers have demonstrated again and again that they cannot be trusted with software, since they only care about profit and putting more and more useless apps into the OS.
We might need more mobile OS, but not for this reason.
Here's what happens when you search facebook on Windows Store:
Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one. Incompetent OEMs can "choose" to override system behavior. After all, Dell, HP & friends were known for really improving the PC software experience.
But that is a choice. For example, I would prefer to recommend to my parents a system with more granular control over permissions than stock Android, and a market which is more curated than Google Play. It's fairly absurd that they can send off all of their contacts to some random third party server because they installed a flashlight app.
> Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one.
To avoid that, you want to choose not to have to make that choice, by going to a more curated platform.
I think the key to creating that alternative is by making both Android and HTML5 apps genuinely cross platform. Blackberry, CyanogenMod and/or Sailfish should support the emerging W3C Web API standards and Cordova, and then create a clear target for Android developers to deploy Android apps that don't rely on Play Services.
The real need isn't for a third OS, it's for a real cross-platform development ecosystem, then there will be genuine space for innovation.
You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one
Those are not the only two categories of apps.
This quote also comes to mind: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
As a developer, sure, become root and install whatever you want. As grandma, just trying to install Facebook on her tablet, do not allow any mistakes. No junkware allowed.
Actual search results: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/search#q=facebook...
You do have a point about a free for all. There was this great blog post about a month ago about someone installing the top 10 free downloads from download.com and the mayhem that ensues.
http://www.howtogeek.com/198622/heres-what-happens-when-you-...
http://www.fixedbyvonnie.com/2014/08/microsoft-windows-store...
Innovation at the base is welcome in the beginning, until the providers "figure out" what's best (for the most part), but after that you really need to focus on higher levels, that are closer to the end-user and bring the innovation there. For that to happen, and to reach masses of people you need some standardization at the base.
Imagine if we'd all still be arguing about the "innovation" in lightbulb sockets - having different shape, width and height sockets in the market, instead of standardizing on one type of socket that everyone has, and then focusing the innovation on what goes inside the socket (the lightbulb technology itself).
I honestly don't see a lot of interest in this from the OEMs other than maybe Amazon (which isn't exactly a great example). I'd imagine they don't want to invest the extra resources into that sort of development when they can stick to skinning and questionable add-on software while letting Google or whoever handle the rest.
And as a user, even if I didn't really want the Play Store or whatever, does anyone really expect HTC or Samsung to do better? Best case scenario you end up with questionable Samsung or HTC services instead of Google services. And Google makes their money from software and attached services instead of hardware so at least they have some level of interest in running those services. Everything I've seen so far tells me that OEMs are even worse than the software companies in terms of developing/maintaining an OS or a fork of an existing one.
It would be interesting to see a company that makes their money from hardware getting into the OS space but so far, Apple is the only one that seems to have the resources and interest to do that fairly well while the software companies like Microsoft and Google live and die by convincing OEMs to license their platforms and bring in more customers for associated services.
Google has done a good job trying to starve WP users of their services, but I think we can all survive without Hangouts (Telegram, etc) and Google Voice (who cares anymore) at this point.
But the app situation is abominable, and getting worse. The Xbox program seems to have been all but abandoned. Microsoft seems to have largely given up even monitoring the app store; half the top/new games on the lists for the last several months have been blatantly pirated material, either blatant copies of whatever iOS/Android fad is running at the moment, or actual emulator ROMs of old console games running in a buggy, half-broken wrapper. They don't even have an actual category for reporting copyright infringement on the report form.
They've also made some missteps on a fair few occasions regarding their own apps, especially with the move to 8.1; replacing or breaking the existing functionality like the Xbox Games portal and the Music app.
On the technical side, there's also some issues regarding app support and limitations on both hardware and software. Manufacturers have to agree to very strict tech specifications in order to license WP, so very few other than Nokia have ever bothered to take them up on it. WP apps are heavily sandboxed and limited in a way reminiscent of pre-multitasking iOS, and the official line from MS seems to be that the only acceptable way to build WP apps is in C# with .NET on Visual Studio. Period. Very grudgingly, HTML5 apps are supported. Other options are possible, but largely only through workarounds, which often are grossly undocumented or hacky. Even MS' own other languages, like VB.net and F# are not officially supported, save as libraries in the latter case. (though again in the latter case, MS seems to not believe anyone should want to build full apps in pure F# at all.)
The OS and the interface themselves are great, and some of those limitations are no doubt part of why by forcing a more predictable environment. But a lot of it just seems to be MS repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot, and I dread to think how much worse it would get if MS had any actual leverage on the market.
This uninviting attitude of theirs was one of the reasons why I ultimately became an Android dev (once I decided to move into mobile apps), even though I had C# / WPF background so picking up Windows Phone would be the most natural next step... And Java admittedly sucks in compare to C#
Unless you are developing for iOS you can't have all of the devices your users might have, being able to solve issues remotely is huge. Especially when you are dealing with hardware issues on all of the Windows hardware out there.
And one thing huge (IMO): the performance/price is pretty amazing with the low/mid level entry Lumia.
(I have the Lumia 735, iPhone 5 before).
I don't think Google has done anymore than MS to cripple WP. With WP, you can use Bing maps, Outlook, skype, cortana and all of the other MS apps that MS fanbois love. Only thing is, the implementation of their own services isn't as good as Google's services. A friend of mine is a MS fanboi, and he was shocked at how bad WP was.
Apple can get away with this, but Windows Phone certainly can't.
Where do I get a 25$ Firfox smartphone?
> has the biggest "app store" of the world because it runs any web app
How many web apps are ready to run offline, e.g. in the subway?
> is totally royalty-free
yes of course and not any patents from Apple, Google, Lenovo/Motorola will be used
> is already being shipped on lots of devices all around the globe
again where?
I like the Firefox very very much but we need someone with money and power to push and even then I doubt that it will be a succes, just look at Microsoft, they have an excellent product but they can't get a foot into the door and again on Firefox OS you need dedicated apps too even if they are web apps.
Windows Phone are the only alternative to Android, when you are buying pre-paid phones and not willing to shell out more then 500 euros for a mobile phone, when earning 400 euros on average.
Even the contracts are not an option for such users.
I can certainly understand the price issue, it's the reason I went with a WP here in Finland: My Lumia 1320 was only 300€. Nothing comparable for Android or iOS was available for less than twice that.
Firefox saved us from an Internet Explorer world. This time round it seems that we need more than just one caped crusader.
Or a whole lot more people joining us in the fight. Mozilla is as capable as you all make it.
1) It's not based on AOSP (unlike Firefox OS)
2) Supports both native and HTML5 apps (Firefox OS apps are limited to HTML5)
3) Backed by Samsung, still a powerful hardware player in most markets. Both Firefox OS and Ubuntu [have had/will have] a tough time getting device manufacturers to adopt their OS, but Tizen doesn't have that problem.
[1] http://jollafr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/oss-vs-nonoss....
[2] http://merproject.org/meetings/mer-meeting/2014/mer-meeting....
By extension that means the quality of the developer environment, APIs, device functionality you can use, and related tooling.
Tizen is nothing without that. Samsung Mobile picking it up for 1, 10 or 100 handsets doesn't guarantee success.
Manufacturers hesitate to bring out devices with a new OS until there is enough developer and user mindshare, but developer and user mindshare grow only when there are enough competitive devices on the market.
Right now, Firefox OS is found only on some low to mid range devices. Ubuntu OS did not even hit the crowdsourced funding target last time. Tizen is in a better position to circumvent this, if Samsung commits to Tizen (which I don't see them doing at the moment) and avoids making the same mistakes as Bada.
They already did a full native API revamp a few times, with no upgrade path every time it was done.
First they threw out the APIs they got from Meego and replaced with straight Bada C++, then they did a facelift, but kept the Bada feeling to the APIs[0], now C++ is out the door and one is supposed to use EFL with C.
Also the documentation leaves a lot to wish for.
[0] Similar to the Symbian C++ dialect, dual step initialization, handles, macros for exceptions
We had Blackberry, iOS, and Android; now we have legitimate Windows Phone adoption, iOS, and Android; and if one of those three should die, we have FirefoxOS to fill in the gap.
I'm sorry to say that, but if you want to get more choices and freedom, the most likely course to succeed is the legal one. Once the prominent player is attacked with anti trust litigation, they'll open up whatever needed to quiet things down. That being said, Google is pretty good on openness from the first place.
Another mobile OS would just mean an awful experience for users, fragmentation for developers and a temptation for device makers to create crap user experience. In terms of resources, if you want to see the mobile market moving forward and not sideways, better invest precious developer efforts in content and functionality, not on more cross platform madness and reinvention of the wheel.
Finally, users get a better experience when things are curated. No one can argue Apple's model doesn't work. People are less concerned about what they can do with their phones, and more concerned about what they actually do with their phones, which is why quality and polish win every time over choice and openness.
What I'm getting at, is that apps interfaces are generally better than web pages or "web apps", but everything else about them sucks. They nag you constantly with updates and unsolicited request to do some action, require to think about permissions, and crash often.
I think the main problem is going to be getting people to develop for an alternative OS. MS had a paid developer per unique app program, which was called desparate by some. Comments here state that license to develop for the WP is a $100??? Jeez, I wonder what their growth team is thinking.
Developers are highly sought after, experimenting is fun, but a lot of people are looking for stable jobs either from the beginning or they want to try a start up / own their own business first. This is also a common problem with trying new programming languages, why choose a new one when established languages have large user base, jobs are plentiful, and not much worry it's going to be abandoned 2 years down the line?
There has to be incentives to overcome these barriers to gain large spread adoption. At the end of the day a lot of it comes down to livelyhood. Will a person risk time devoting on something new? If a person starts a company on this new OS, will other developers take that risk to join? Will the clients/customers be willing to make that switch?
http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/1153292 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-i...
It's not the walls that keep people out, it's the sharks.
While I understand the point about Siri, Gmail (of all the Google apps) seems like a terrible example of the same thing on the Android side (Maps and its incestuous relationship with Play Services might be a better fit). What does Gmail do that Microsoft's Outlook app couldn't do if Microsoft were willing to invest the effort? Maybe I'm missing a feature I don't use, but the best I can come up with is being bundled with the device, but even there if Microsoft struck a deal with, say, Verizon, I don't think there's much Google could do about it.
Worth noting that this type of deep integration is totally possible with the Web: you can use many APIs like voice recognition, alarms, etc. "3rd-party apps" from the web can very well integrate deeply with your device, if you allow them.
Well, that's what Google did with Android but the makers were so bad at it (making the Android worse, not updating...) that Google had to take back control by moving more and more elements to the Play services.
However the fact that quality was also an issue put me in the very weird position of applauding the increased centralization of Android.
I'm hoping Cyanagenmod can somehow square the circle here.
2. The more OS's there are, the worse it is for companies that have to build apps for multiple systems. It would be easiest if there was just one OS, but like Communism, that doesn't work out. So a duopoly seems like the best compromise.
http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp
The only sense in which this is still a duopoly is that the iOS platform, while a relatively tiny share of the total market, is still a significant share of paid apps.
Seriously, if you want more mobile OSes, but you're not even considering Firefox OS you should probably shut up and start writing your super-powerful-mega-winner OS yourself and stop complaining.
However, the existence of Windows Phone has proven that developers do not want to support more than 2 mobile platforms. It creates a barrier for entry and support updates if you want to keep all of your platforms at parity.
As a result, the fate of any 3rd ecosystem is a slow non-growth existence in the froth of the industry platform churn.
Too bad that bad execution and implementation killed it before its time. =(
LG hasn't given me a TV to hack on =) so I have no idea how much things have changed under the hood. I liked the Samsung TVs till the recent overly invasive creepiness (mic, ads etc.) Maybe I'll get a LG next time.
Yes, we all know this—maybe the OP wouldn't mind also to tell how we or whoever should break this duopoly if even Microsoft is not able to.
I thought he was talking about AT&T and Verizon.
My sense is that with ubiquitous WiFi and IP based protocols, I can ditch my Smartphone for most uses, and with it the massive amounts of intrusion and data surveillance it represents. A small "feature phone" (with vastly superior battery performance) for general comms, and functioning as a modem in a pinch, with a tablet that's used in a cache-and-burst mode most of the time, and with more continuous connectivity where that's available.
Mobile phone operators are well on the way to making themselves obsolete.