Slashdot Mirror
Android 2.0 — Competition Against the iPhone and the Rest
GMGruman writes "Every few months, it seems, there is a new 'iPhone killer.' Android 2.0, in the guise of the Motorola Droid, is the latest such 'killer.' But what will it really take to beat or match the iPhone (single page), and does Android or any other mobile OS have the right stuff? There's a lot more to the answer than is usually discussed. This article takes a look at the strengths that may allow Droid and Android 2.0 to provide strong competition to devices like the iPhone and the Blackberry, as well as the obstacles it continues to face that could inhibit adoption."
The problem he's referring to is that the combined size of all your apps is 256MB on current phones, this isn't an individual app limit.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
What all the Android fanbois don't know, or tell you, is that Android has a 256 MB app storage limit.
No. Please learn to read. That phone has 256MB for app storage. My G1 dev phone as 1.5GB for app storage (because I've only got a 2GB card in it, and I wanted some room for ringtones, etc.)
Google, just WTF where you thinking?
Considering it was Motorola that designed the Droid, why would you think that Google had anything to do with it?
One problem killing the iPhone, is that most of the iPhone's weaknesses are one policy change away from disappearing.
Enough people want background apps? Well there they are.
Enough people want customizable lock screens? Alright, that's easy enough.
Enough people want shared file storage? There, done.
Enough people want post-hoc approval of apps, like Android? No problem, it'll save Apple time and money to boot.
Enough people want unsigned apps distributed outside the app store? Ok, here you go.
Enough people want Flash, or other browser plugins? Fine, Adobe has been clamoring to put Flash on iPhone since it's inception.
Enough people want root access? Fine, administration is their problem.
Apple keeps those measures of control because they help to protect their platform's image from incompetent or unscrupulous coders, and their negative impact on most users is relatively minor. If that balance ever shifts, either due to more competent coders (supposedly Flash 10.1 is heavily optimized) or more demanding users (with friends whose phones do some or all of the above), the rules can change in an instant.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
The Razr was a disaster.
Really? The Razr is commonly touted as Motorola's last great success. I knew several people who bought, and were happy with, the Razr, including my wife. I considered one, but decided that I'd rather keep the LG that randomly stops working. (I'm not a big fan of ubiquitous communication.)
To respond to your point more directly, Motorola are not competing by themselves. they're using a form factor that is proven (see Nokia devices for several examples.) Motorola are using an OS that has already seen modest success; an OS sharpened by a company (google) who strive for ubiquity. The Droid also has some components that the iPhone is missing.
As long as their implementation is sound, I see no reason why Verizon, Motorola and Google shouldn't enjoy profits from the Droid. They are entering an established market; each is an experienced competitor; and there are lots of us who have been shut out of the iPhone market because we are Verizon customers. (I've heard complaints, but frankly, I've had nothing but positive experience with the company.) Further, Verizon seems to be marketing this harder than Motorola or Google. I have modest respect for Verizon, and find it difficult to believe that they would allow Motorola to sully their name.
I believe that this phone will enjoy moderate success. It doesn't have the cachet of Apple, but it's entering a market with a good deal of potential. Besides, Motorola is getting hungry: They played a big part in defining the cell phone market, and they nearly died by failing to follow through with their earlier success. Motorola has lots to lose, and I think that they really want to get it right.
All that aside, I figure that it's an open platform. If Motorola really gets it wrong, within 3 months, I'll be able to update it with a more friendly platform. I've already told my wife that she's getting one, and finally, after 7 years with the same phone, I intend to buy a new phone.
Maybe you hate Motorola phones, but I'm really looking forward to the Droid. I hope that it lives up to my expectations.
And Android (not just Droid, or Verizon, but Android) is doing that. Right now the iPhone is tied into AT&T, if you are on T-Mobile, Sprint or Verizon you can't use the iPhone without some difficulty. Android will eventually be available no matter which phone company you prefer. Then there is the variety of hardware. Someone who doesn't like using a touchscreen for typing won't like the iPhone, yet the G1, Droid and other Android phones have physical keyboards and if you prefer an all touchscreen phone the Magic and Hero phones have that.
The ability not to have to jump ship for the "latest and greatest" might be a huge feature of Android, especially if you are tied into a contract. While some phones will be carrier exclusive without a doubt, Android itself is cross-network. Android's power is not int he G1, Magic, Droid, Hero or any other phone but in the fact it can easily saturate the market better than any other platform currently offered. When even "dumb phones" can run the apps you have written for Android, it is going to reach more of the market than Apple's high-end exclusive offerings and make it easier than "jump through hoops to get it to run without using expensive data plans" problems that JavaME has.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Shhh! It gives journalists something to write about, and the headline is really catchy. Just shut up and consume.
Any single Android app can only be 256MB in size, and if any app uses that allowance, it's the only one you can install on the phone.
Bullshit. Maybe if you pulled your head out of Steve Jobs ass, it might improve your reading comprehension.
Also, read carefully: Android has a 256MB limit for total app storage.
No. YOU read carefully:
Android has no such limit. That particular phone has 256MB for total app storage. It is not an Android limit, regardless of how much you might want it to be.
I disagree.
Both Android and the iPhone OS are ultraportable computing platforms. The iPhone isn't really a phone per se, but a mobile computing device with phone functionality. Apple will even sell you one sans phone if you want it.
Successful competitors to the iPhone will be those that understand that the point is to make a better ultraportable computing platform, not necessarily a better phone. I think Google may be able to do that, but I don't think RIM can, and Microsoft's development team appears to be a circular firing squad.
As usual, competition is only good for end users, so I hope Android does well.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
Spoken like a review from a windowshopper.
Look, there is nothing special about the Iphone OS any more.
That just isn't true. Android 2.0 is pretty attractive on the surface, but it's still plagued with UI and usability kinks that have yet to be worked out. Multi-touch still isn't quite right, nor is it fluid. Android's interaction on the desktop is much better than most of its competitors, but it still lags behind the iTunes experience. There are plenty of advantages to the iPhone platform, including the iPhone OS.
When someone writes a wrapper for these App store Apps that allows them to run on Android, its game over for this particular advantage.
That's what they said about Linux and Windows in 1996. Easier said than done. We're still waiting.
But lets face it, the hardware has no particular advantage any more
The pile of hardware components was never the advantage to begin with. The devil's in the details. It'd be a trivial effort to out-spec the iPhone's hardware, but that doesn't get you anywhere on its own. Look at the terrible state of video playback at the time on smartphones even with the same muscle as the first generation iPhone.
Whether you love the iPhone or hate it, it's indisputable that it was a kick in the pants for everyone else. Now they're actually trying to make good products, and competitors are addressing their failings and adapting what they can from Apple's lead. That's how it should have worked, even if the iPhone never existed, but it just didn't. Even Windows Mobile, while still painful to use, is at least easier to look at these days.
But Android has the advantage of youth, and none of the baggage of middle age.
Drama much? The iPhone is "middle-aged"? What does that make RIM/Blackberry? A pensioner?