Gartner Predicts Android Most Popular Mobile OS By 2014

mikesd81 writes "According to Gartner research firm, Google's Android smartphone operating system will in a single year have leapfrogged competitors like Apple's iPhone, Research in Motion's Blackberry and Microsoft Windows phones in global popularity, and will challenge Nokia to become the world's most popular mobile OS by 2014. Gartner says that the explosive growth of Android will give it 17.7% of world wide sales by the end of 2010. ... Analysts also say there are number of things that could derail Android's growth, including Oracle's lawsuit over Java patents."

Comments

Android overlords

[Linsaran]

I for one welcome our new android overlords

Re:Android overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer to welcome our Gynoid overlords...

Re:Android overlords

[mestar]

Gartner can predict, but will Netcraft confirm it?

Re:Android overlords

[TheLink]

How useful are Gartner anyway? What's their track record like for useful accurate predictions. Where useful = nonobvious.

Re:Android overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

How useful are Gartner anyway? What's their track record like for useful accurate predictions. Where useful = nonobvious.

Not that great, actually. I think they said a few years back that the iphone sucked. While I agree, they were very wrong on how popular it would become.

There's a whole list of stuff like that.None of which I can remember off the top of my head at the moment, but I can tell you that I start getting a feeling of quiet, building rage everytime I read "Gartner says..."

Re:Android overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer to welcome our Gynoid overlords...

Why would you want your phone to bleed for three days every month get really bitchy?

Re:Android overlords

[postbigbang]

You'll recall what they said about OS/2. Strangely, oddly, uncharacteristically, OS/2 isn't on every desktop and machine. How could that be???

Re:Android overlords

[TheLink]

Can't remember that, because normally when I hear "Gartner", I think "Bullshit". But that's my personal bias, so I was just wondering if my bias is unfounded :).

Thank you editors

[klingens]

for putting the most important words of this "news" right at the beginning: "Gartner predicts". From that point onwards, everyone knows one can safely disregard anything that follows unless a good laugh is needed.

Re:Thank you editors

[uncanny]

not only that, but it's like comparing windows to apple OS, you can put windows on anything, but aos can only be put on apple made machines.

Re:Thank you editors

[FooAtWFU]

The Wall Street Journal also had analysis; they said that Apple can afford to lose a chunk of market share (in a growing market) and instead should worry about the competition driving the price down. Here's the story (do the google-the-URL thing to get a good Referer: if it doesn't show the whole thing).

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

So? That's Apple's choice. If they want to keep their divvy OS to themselves, that's their problem (or not).

Re:Thank you editors

[uncanny]

well mr oversensitive, all i was saying is that they chose to make it so it's a lot easier to get a competitors product, and unless they stay a "must have" product, they are eventually going to lose market domination.

Re:Thank you editors

[nloop]

I see you own an iPhone

Re:Thank you editors

[binarylarry]

I think it's interesting that Google and co are doing to Apple what Microsoft and co did to Apple back in the day. They've created a similar product and used openness/developer friendlyness to displace Apple from dominance. I wonder how long before the iOS products are relegated to 10% marketshare like their desktop offerings are.

It's a chink in Steve Job's iArmor.

Re:Thank you editors

[alen]

too late for that once apple blinked on the dev kit thing

iphones and android phones are almost identical right now with 80% or more functionality being the same. unlike the early computer era when everyone seemed to use different CPU's

android and iphone both use ARM CPU's
the OS is ^nix in both cases
almost all of the top apps are available on each platform

big differences are the form factor with android coming in different form factors.
iOS is still better for games
and you need a computer to run iTunes if you have an iPhone where Android phones are stand alone phones

in both cases they still command a premium for businesses selling them, but in the next year or two i think margins will start falling just like with PC's around 2000. if you look at the teardowns this year there is a lot more integration which means it will be easier to manufacture and source the parts

up until the iphone 3GS it was a mess in there with chips and wires everywhere. iphone 4 looks a lot cleaner with almost everything integrated on one circuit board. and with android being open source expect to see tier b phones pop up where some company takes the code, puts it into a cheap phone with no new featues and sells it on metro PCS or boost mobile for $50 a month talk, text, email and web

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Extrapolation can predict almost any outcome. Just find however small a period that has the percentage growth you want, cut, paste, extrapolate.

Take a look at Chrome browser's 1-day growth...people were predicting it would be #2 in a matter of weeks/months...

"oh look, it downloads have increased by 200,900% in 3 hours!!, let's extrapolate...OMG, it will have 17 billion users by TUESDAY!!!"

Re:Thank you editors

[Abcd1234]

Given Gartner are Microsoft shills, this pronouncement should hardly be surprising given the sheer amount of Win7 mobile hype we've been seeing lately. Hell, I'm surprised it took them this long...

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

That's about how accurate analysts' predictions are. I have another one: since I never died before, I will never die.

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

"iphones and android phones are almost identical right now with 80% or more functionality being the same."

The problem is that in the remaining 20% lies a good deal of pain. There are inconsistencies with android that are INFURIATING. And they seem like minor quibbles when put on paper. But then again, the difference between OS X and Windows (and even variants of GUI Based Linux operating systems) are minor on paper.

The problem with the Android is that it just doesn't have any real polish. Things that should just work, don't. And occasionally, someone will put out a product on Android that has the polish, but doesn't seem to work with anything else in its ecosphere...and end up just as restricted as the iPhone.

Honestly, the ONLY problem I have with the iPhone is the fucking restrictions. At this point, Apple has a virtual monopoly on phones that work and are polished and should move away from the telecoms and open the shit up and allow anything to be installed.

It is sad that the choices are freedom, but shitty shitty freedom...free to do whatever you want so long as you are willing to put up with third rate apps and broken infrastructure, verses a mostly benevolent dictator that ensures the trains run on time and vandalism is cleaned away before you see it...but is a bit vindictive when someone crosses him (he won't kill ya, but he will escort your ass to the gates and not let you back in).

Why is it so hard for someone to just do both???

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhone share on global smartphone market has hovered around 13-15% for some time now, and there's no signs of it actually getting higher - so, 10% or less can happen pretty soon. As smartphone market is pushed towards more and more third-party-application-friendly direction (through more developer-friendly APIs, better hardware, better networks and reduced operator strangulation on devices), Apple begins to dwindle on this segment. This doesn't kill Apple by any sense, considering their absurd per-unit profits, but it can eventually draw most developer interest out of their ecosystem. Their shuffling of app store policies certainly shows they're feeling the heat.

Even worse fate probably awaits RIM - they're just too small to have an upward trend. Android is almost certain big winner on 3-year scale, but how do the markets fare for Symbian^3, Symbian^4, MeeGo (all with Qt for developers and facelift for users) and Windows Phone? Much harder to say about them - but both Nokia and Microsoft have their strengths while Apple has to concentrate on keeping their brand image on the same level as their device price is, and obviously being unable to spread their platform beyond their own, pricy devices.

It's also obvious that Nokia has the biggest potential for loss - but it also has considerable potential for at least leveling their smartphone market share and unit price. It's not a question if they have good technology and talent - it's a question if they are capable of bringing it to the market better than Google, Microsoft, and the manufacturers on these ecosystems.

Microsoft has the potential to surprise the whole market, although I see much uncertainty there.

Re:Thank you editors

[JWSmythe]

    No shit. :)

    Just about everyone knows that "predictions" and "forward looking statements" aren't worth the time it takes to read them. 4 years from now? Android isn't even 2 years old yet. It may not have reached it's peak in popularity, but who knows what bigger, better, faster, toy there will be in the next 4 years. At very least, it's added another competitive element in the market place, but that can simply mean that it will push others (existing, or not yet on the market) to put out something better.

    Hell, Google's Nexus One direct customer sales only survived from January to July 2010. It's a volatile market, and products come and go very quickly. Look at the Motorola Razr. Kids all thought it was the coolest thing ever. Plenty of them hit the market. They only survived from the end of 2004 to mid 2007.

    I'm still looking forward to the collapse of all this noise towards the end of Q4 2012.

Re:Thank you editors

[Ceriel Nosforit]

Popularity is about marketing, not about merit. I suspect Gartner knows all about marketing.

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia has already leveled their market share -- last four quarters have all been positive for them. The unit price is still a problem of course...

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has the potential to surprise the whole market, although I see much uncertainty there.

EVERYONE has the potential to surpise - they just have to do something different to what everyone else is expecting. If in Microsoft's case the potential for surpise lies in them being successful then that's not saying much for their chances.

Re:Thank you editors

[Tridus]

That's what I came here to post. I can't believe the editors continue to post crap from Gartner. They're excellent at making very bad predictions, or in this case absolutely meaningless ones. They have absolutely no idea what's going to happen to this market in four years.

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

"oh look, it downloads have increased by 200,900% in 3 hours!!, let's extrapolate...OMG, it will have 17 billion users by TUESDAY!!!"

Oblig xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/605/

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

As smartphone market is pushed towards more and more third-party-application-friendly direction (through more developer-friendly APIs, better hardware, better networks and reduced operator strangulation on devices), Apple begins to dwindle on this segment.

Developer friendly?

When I release to the AppStore, I am fairly sure that 90% or more of iOS users can run my app. Furthermore, unless I am dependent on a recent API change, I can make that almost 100% easily.

Compare that to the fragmented Android ecosystem where, not only do you have to deal with the major releases (1.6, 2.1, 2.2, etc), but you have to deal with the segmented nature and customizations of the individual provider releases. So, for anything but the most basic of Android app, the target market will probably be, at best, the same size as the iOS ecosystem.

Re:Thank you editors

[Spatial]

"Gartner discovers linear interpolation"

Re:Thank you editors

[NeutronCowboy]

But they're very useful in finding out what businesses will believe. It's amazing how much pull a Gartner article like this can have during a sales cycle.

Don't look at Gartner articles as truth, but as as an indicator of business beliefs. They're actually useful in that way.

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, it will have 17 billion users by TUESDAY!!!

Funnily enough, that's only about half of the number of estimated pirates according to the RIAA.

Re:Thank you editors

[Xest]

"Hell, Google's Nexus One direct customer sales only survived from January to July 2010. It's a volatile market, and products come and go very quickly."

That was very much a one off experiment by a single vendor in direct sales, so it's hardly a great example of a trend in the mobile industry.

"Look at the Motorola Razr. Kids all thought it was the coolest thing ever. Plenty of them hit the market. They only survived from the end of 2004 to mid 2007."

Might I suggest the take a look at how the RAZR did? I'll give you a hint- it achieved over 3 times the number of handset sales the iPhone did in a it's first 3 year period. Hardly a good example of a failed phone, it was one of the most succesful phones in history, coming only behind Nokia's ultra cheap handsets like the 1100 which have been lapped up by countries like China and India, as well as African nations.

If you're going to criticise mobile phone marketplace predictions it's generally a good idea to have a clue about it first. Citing one of the most succesful mobile phones of all time as an example of something that didn't do as well as predicted because it only lasted 3 years is silly because it clearly was a phenomenal success.

There's a good basis to the idea that Android will continue to grow and that's because it's got the support of so many vendors, and certainly it faces issues, but right now it's growth is incredible. Sustainable? who knows, but it's a better bet as the next contender to the crown in the mobile phone industry compared to other mobile phone OS' who are pretty much stagnant or are even in decline. Perhaps the best thing Android has going for it though because by nature of it's relative openness it's a candidate to replace the next generation of phones lapped up by the poorer markets like India, Africa, and China, whilst things like iOS and RIM's Blackberry OS, possible even Windows Mobile have no real cheap hardware platforms- effectively right now other than perhaps MeeGo or whatever Nokia is calling it this week, Android is the only real contender to Symbian dominated markets without detriment to being a strong player in the high end smartphone market too.

Re:Thank you editors

[gbjbaanb]

I'm still looking forward to the collapse of all this noise towards the end of Q4 2012.

Me too. By then Nokia will have perfected their 'mobile computing devices' and we'll all be thinking how crap those old smartphones were, with our new mini-PC we dock at our desks or to our TVs. Times, they are a-changing, the old desktop PC dinosaur is dead, it just doesn't realise it yet.

Re:Thank you editors

[The End Of Days]

You seem to have the idea that Apple desires to dominate the market, for reasons I can't really understand. Why do you think that's their goal? They've never really done anything that would indicate it is. I guess it's easier to say they fail to meet your goals for them, but that doesn't really have any meaning outside of the "must bash Apple" crowd.

Re:Thank you editors

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I see you own an iPhone

This comment is precisely why this story made it to Slashdot.

Re:Thank you editors

[Citizen of Earth]

This is the PC Clone wars redux. Apple should study what happened to IBM and the IBM PC since it is playing that role, with its fully proprietary system. Android is the new MS-DOS. The intense competition among lots of hardware vendors for both price and power unified by the new MS-DOS will be more heat than IBM... I mean Apple... can handle.

Re:Thank you editors

[thammoud]

Before introducing any products, Steve Jobs always puts up the numbers of how dominant Apple is. I would say, they do care.

Re:Thank you editors

[toriver]

"Gartner abuses linear interpolation".

Someone should show them this.

Re:Thank you editors

[marcello_dl]

Well since the apple personal computers which lost to the IBM PC were open platforms, I think apple has one more handicap this time. OTOH in the 80s being hip meant having the most capable equipment, while now it's more about marketing.

Re:Thank you editors

[syousef]

That's what I came here to post. I can't believe the editors continue to post crap from Gartner. They're excellent at making very bad predictions, or in this case absolutely meaningless ones. They have absolutely no idea what's going to happen to this market in four years.

Are you sure about that? Has Netcraft confirmed it?

Re:Thank you editors

[mounthood]

But they're very useful in finding out what businesses will believe. It's amazing how much pull a Gartner article like this can have during a sales cycle.

Don't look at Gartner articles as truth, but as as an indicator of business beliefs. They're actually useful in that way.

Useful as a reflection of the media too: Gartner makes (stupid) predictions about all kinds of software and companies, but it's the 'Android will dominate' story that gets picked up and repeated.

Re:Thank you editors

[coaxial]

I wonder how long before the iOS products are relegated to 10% marketshare like their desktop offerings are.

Way to troll. It's profit per unit. Market share is irrelevant. Googzilla is trying to be McDonald's, cheap and crappy, and with a big sandpaper dick right up everyone's ass. Nah. Fuck Google. They're Former Lord Bill's wet dream come true.

Re:Thank you editors

[JWSmythe]

    Thank you, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. :)

    The greatest up and comer of today will rarely be the champion of the industry, and it's impossible to predict such things.

    If you read the graph included with the story, it makes my statement very clear. They only reported Q2 2009 to Q2 2010. 1 year to make a 4 year estimate? They also only showed new phone purchases. It does not reflect people who kept their phone in service since before Q2 2009. This would taint their data. For example, Verizon Wireless offers a discount to trade your phone in after two years. I almost consider their data tainted, because they can't even label the graph correctly. Q? is a quarter year. The show 4 quarters, which is 12 months. The graph is labeled "... in the past 6 months." Or how about the green line showing "Palm OS, Symbian, Linux 6%", where Android is a Linux based platform.

    But back to the argument at hand. Does an upward trend of 6 months indicate that the trend will continue for 4 years? No. Look at Q2 2009 to Q4 2009. The Apple iPhone increased from about 25% to 35%. At the same time, Android was lingering down below 10%. At the end of Q4 2009, the same analysis could have been made of the iPhone. Obviously that would have been wrong, even though they may have predicted the iPhone being the dominant phone on the market. Wrap those two lines together, and they would have had a very different report.

Q2 2009 - 16%
Q3 2009 - 20%
Q4 2009 - 16%
Q1 2010 - 24%
Q2 2010 - 33%

    There's no way to predict the future. If we could predict sales with any sort of accuracy, we'd all be rich.

    There are other considerations that aren't covered either. What promotions were being done? What distribution agreements were in place? etc, etc, etc.

Re:Thank you editors

[drsmithy]

They're Former Lord Bill's wet dream come true.

Commodity computing that anyone can afford ?

Re:Thank you editors

[Xest]

Ah, you're one of those with a very binary mindset, to you everything must be either black or white, there are no shades of grade. There can be no middle ground, a prediction is either right or wrong, it can't be a "reasonable guess".

No one sensible makes a prediction and assumes it will be 100% correct, but a prediction that isn't 100% correct isn't worthless. If someone predicted the RAZR would be the most popular phone in history in year one or two, then it wouldn't be too bad a prediction seeing as it was one of the most successful, and was certainly the most succesful out of the budget phones. If for example the prediction was made to a room of app developers and they based their development on that prediction and decided to target the RAZR for example then the platform would still have done well enough for the app developers to reap the rewards of it even if it didn't come number one in the end.

Similarly, if Android only takes 2nd place by 2014 then the prediction wasn't 100% accurate, but it was a reasonable guess, and anyone following it would still likely have seen the benefits of targetting the second place platform- more so if it still takes 1st place, albeit a year late for example.

Predictions are made based on weighing up the possibilities, and if there's a reasonable chance something can happen, then it's not wrong to predict it. People don't make predictions with the goal of being either 100% right, or 100% wrong, they make them as a reasonable guess as to the way things could be going.

Don't blame other people for your inability to see the shades of grey in something, this world isn't entirely binary I'm afraid. A prediction that was close but not quite correct can still be very valuable.

Predictions might pain you in your world of absolutes, because they can't ever be guaranteed to be absolutely correct, but providing a prediction is based upon reasonable understanding of the underlying facts, and the trends in the market place, then they're still an important tool. Whilst you may ignore it because it's of no worth to you and because to you anything that's not guaranteed to be correct is obviously stupid and not worth paying attention to, there will be plenty of people that do need to pay attention to such predictions and research further how well grounded they are as they are fundamental to setting future business direction and the like.

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

"dominate" can be used to mean different things.

Yes. I, for example, like to dominate with a whip and some ropes.

Re:Thank you editors

[ScrewMaster]

"dominate" can be used to mean different things.

Yes. I, for example, like to dominate with a whip and some ropes.

Context, man, context!

Re:Thank you editors

[Anonymous Coward]

for putting the most important words of this "news" right at the beginning: "Gartner predicts". From that point onwards, everyone knows one can safely disregard anything that follows unless a good laugh is needed.

Exactly! I'm only reading this thread for the abuse of Gartner.

Re:Thank you editors

[jscotta44]

Both Apple and IBM have survived the PC wars quite nicely. IBM sold their business to Lenevo for a tidy profit, and Apple continues to redefine itself.

As to being a fully proprietary system, most "devices" are proprietary. I'm not talking computers here, but even those somewhat. You don't switch out internal components of a Cusinart food processor with a Kenmore one. If you are talking OS proprietary position, then you are correct and yet now. You are correct in that it is mostly proprietary. You are not correct in implying that is a bad thing. As a developer, I know exactly what I can expect to have my stuff run on if it is an iOS device. I don't know what to expect for an Android project. I have to decide what hardware and Android OS version to target and that seems to change almost daily.

Re:Thank you editors

[jscotta44]

Dude, if the 80's had been about the most capable computers, we would be running UNIX workstations still. 80's PC were crap for power and capability.

Re:Thank you editors

[coaxial]

>They're Former Lord Bill's wet dream come true.

Commodity computing that anyone can afford ?

Absolute control of users from cradle to grave?

Re:Thank you editors

[SiChemist]

Often, I read complaints from the apple crowd about its competitors that boil down to "the apple product is more polished". But, they don't often refer to specific things that "lack polish" on the competitor. I think this kind of complaint is really just a thinly veiled "it isn't apple so I don't want it."

2014 is finally...

[ELCouz]

the year of linux mobile desktop!

Deja vu?

[wiresquire]

Google will be (or already is?) the new Microsoft.

Just as Microsoft was the new IBM.

Re:Deja vu?

[ScrewMaster]

Google will be (or already is?) the new Microsoft.

Just as Microsoft was the new IBM.

That always sounds like a reasonable comparison, but under Google's current leadership, and their current business focus, that probably won't ever be the case. Microsoft got where it is by committing a whole host of illegal, anti-competitive acts (still are, actually) and can be legitimately said to have retarded progress over the past thirty-odd years. Google isn't really doing anything of that nature, and if anything is pushing the state-of-the-art. Google's external operations are also very standards-based and, so far as I'm aware, Google hasn't pulled anything like what Microsoft did with the ISO approval process.

Google isn't charging an arm-and-a-leg to phone makers for Android, matter of fact, it isn't charging anything. It also offers a remarkable suite of online services ... also for free. Of course, there's a reason for that: the only thing Google really "sells" is ad space, and that will only make money for them as long as they can attract eyeballs. I look at Google's rather massive investment in R&D and outpouring of free cloud-based services as being very future-oriented: they know that they may not be able to subsist on ad revenue forever, and would like to have other options. Microsoft has been doing the same thing for the same reason for many years, but Microsoft generally fails at anything outside its core competency of operating systems and office suites. Likewise, Google isn't making much money, directly, from its online services (other than its bread-and-butter ad views) but in the meantime we get to play with some cool stuff and they get to sell some more advertising. Some of that nifty online stuff may stick, and eventually start making Google some serious money. Only time will tell.

But they're far from a monopoly, illegal or otherwise (as of now, anyway), and any comparison to Microsoft or IBM in terms of ethics or monopolism is really undeserved at this point. Not saying that will always be true: companies do change, but in this case I think we'll have to wait until Brin & Page retire. Hopefully their successors will be at least as good, business-ethics-wise (well, better than Gates' replacement, anyway, which wouldn't be too hard.)

Re:Deja vu?

[miffo.swe]

Microsoft became the new IBM by being more evil and being even more absent of any morals than even the Nazgul. They managed to trick IBM and that in itself is not an easy feat.

Microsoft was bad from the very first day, they did not suddenly turn into assholes. From the first day when they tricked themselves to Qdos that was an illegal copy of CP/M and sold it before they owned it, they have been nothing about customers and all about making money no matter who gets maimed in the process. Their least important bit of all is the end customer.

Re:Deja vu?

[gbjbaanb]

I look at Google's rather massive investment in R&D and outpouring of free cloud-based services as being very future-oriented: they know that they may not be able to subsist on ad revenue forever, and would like to have other options. Microsoft has been doing the same thing for the same reason for many years

1 thing about that, Google is milking the ads like they'll be nothing eventually, and looking to the future for potential alternatives (or additives). Microsoft is only just jumping on the ad bandwagon and trying to slap them everywhere they can. I can imagine Microsoft putting ads into Office soon and alienating its users, while Google moves on to something even more profitable (probably a % of subscription services, micro-paid for from your mobile contract or somesuch).

but Microsoft generally fails at anything outside its core competency of operating systems and office suites.

oh, you beat me to it :)

but you missed one important thing: developers. There is a very good reason MS courts them so much, and its something Google would do well to look at.

Re:Deja vu?

[ScrewMaster]

1 thing about that, Google is milking the ads like they'll be nothing eventually, and looking to the future for potential alternatives (or additives). Microsoft is only just jumping on the ad bandwagon and trying to slap them everywhere they can. I can imagine Microsoft putting ads into Office soon and alienating its users, while Google moves on to something even more profitable (probably a % of subscription services, micro-paid for from your mobile contract or somesuch).

Hard to say, but you're probably right that Google will find something to replace or substantially augment their current model. They're still capable of looking forward: Microsoft (in spite of the considerable sums it spends on Microsoft Research) spends more effort trying to maintain the status quo. Oh, Google is a big operation now and certainly has a significant level of inertia, but I think its longer term prospects are better. You're also right about something else: when Google releases something it's usually executed competently from a technical perspective. Even when they do buy up a company (like, for instance, Grand Central) it usually ends up pretty well integrated.

but you missed one important thing: developers.

Well, that's true of course, but there's an important difference. Because Google is implementing their externally-facing services in a standards-compliant way (hell, they're a Linux shop through-and-through) they don't really have to worry too much about courting developers. Microsoft, on the other hand, has always gone its own way in terms of programming methodologies, languages and tools, and thus has an uphill battle to keep Web developers interested. Google just has to use the tools everyone who codes for the Internet and the World Wide Web already knows and keep doing really nifty things with them.

Android, now, is something of a hybrid but it is something that Java devs can get into fairly quickly. I've often wondered why Google chose to base Android development around a bastardized Java, but if anything it was probably to attract enterprise-level Java developers. Google obviously wants to break into the enterprise market, because a. the Cloud's the Word and b. there's serious money there. Using a language with which in-house corporate developers are already familiar and already runs a lot of heavy-duty back-end stuff was probably a smart move. I don't know: I'm not exactly on first-name terms with Larry and Sergey.

I'd go so far as to say that if the Year of Linux on the Desktop ever happens, it will likely be because of Google.

Re:Deja vu?

[gbjbaanb]

yep, I agree there - Linux will be popular because of Google.

But.. developers. Its not about providing tools and saying 'off you go then', MS actively courts devs, look at how .NET dev has finally taken off, MS has pushed massive amounts of marketing, hype, tooling and stuff at devs everytime it can, and the number of C# jobs is the result. And now, I have to learn it for my next role, even though there are so many crappy bits in the framework (version hell anyone?) that it feels like coding VB6 all over again. Still, everyone wants to do it now - future careers are a subconcious incentive. So, though I've put it off for a while, it looks like i'll have to learn it, and then probably learn something else too to keep up (I like to learn stuff properly you see, not just be 'good enough')

So web devs are also coming round - whereas I used to see almost exclusive Linux webhosting, and the odd 'pay loads extra' for MS hosting, now its mostly Windows webhosts. I assume MS pays for every user, or at least gives the stuff away (they did that to us - we used Oracle DBs, but MS said to us - sell SQLServer and we'll give you it for nothing so every licence you see, you get to keep the cash. Management wet themselves at that, and now most of our customers choose the sql server option).

These are the reasons I think its important to court devs, MS slips and slides in here and there to get people to choose the easy option, persuades marketing to offer the MS option first, pretends their tech is the ultimate best thing ever (since the last one which is now 'that old crud' of course)

I don't think Google chose Java to attract Java devs, but because they used and liked it themselves. Nothing more than that. Google has always been a Java/python/C company because of their employee's skillsets.

I'm sure we'll see what happens. Probably more share price decline for MS and possibly the end of Ballmer if (when?) Windows Mobile 7 doesn't do as well as expected.

Re:Deja vu?

[ScrewMaster]

But.. developers. Its not about providing tools and saying 'off you go then', MS actively courts devs, look at how .NET dev has finally taken off, MS has pushed massive amounts of marketing, hype, tooling and stuff at devs everytime it can, and the number of C# jobs is the result.

Yeah, you're probably right there, but what you're talking about is really more Microsoft courting PHBs than courting developers. At my job, anyway, I get told what programming tools I have to use, whether I want to or not. That's the case throughout most of corporate America. I've been coding on Microsoft products since DOS 1.0., and like anyone who has been in the business for a while, you have to work to convince me that your latest shiny tool is the best thing since the invention of the wheel. Particularly if there are better alternatives available, since I'll be the one dealing with all the crap a bad decision will bring down on me.

But it's not people like you and me who make purchasing decisions: it's the people who get to go to lunch with Microsoft reps who do. So when Ballmer said "Developers, developers, developers, developers" he wasn't just saying, "Let's make great tools so programmers will flock to us" he was saying "we're directing more funds to the sales force."

Re:Deja vu?

[toriver]

"Free" as in ad-supported. But what happens if/when vendors or phone companies start making "de-Googled" Android builds? Apparently, Verizon's version of the Samsung Galaxy S uses Bing instead of Google, and fixing that is a bit convoluted (for a non-techie).

Re:Deja vu?

[gbjbaanb]

Now I'm in the UK, and I see it differently (culture maybe). We don't get PHBs courted by MS reps, what we do have is a pervasive 'marketplace' of developers who want or like certain development tools, these drive the adoption - usually by telling the PHB of XYZ being the next thing. Obviously this only works for mainstream stuff, and PHBs looking at the job market and seeing cheaper/more devs with certain tools. There's also the trainign aspect - we tedn to offer training as a perk to devs, who then say "I need XYZ to stay current", boss sees all this happening and decides that its ok to trial a tool or so to see whether its ok or not.

Then, the dev tools arrive and they're filled chok-full of the 'new microsoft stuff' (as everyone uses Visual Studio) and its almost difficult not to use it. And, of course, the computing media is full of Microsoft's marketing telling us all how wonderful the new crap is. (I recall a softie markleteer telling us all how .NET exceptions were completely free, no overhead whatsoever and could be used for program flow! And how reference counting was so bad no-one could ever write an app without circular references, and that GC would solve world hunger. sigh)

So I've had to put up with the newer devs always nagging me when we'll start using .NET 'cos its so much better and so on. and now we have a ton of re-training and inexperienced devs. And I think we'll end up with more javascript-based web dev instead of monolithic thick clients. (but not quite yet).

Re:Deja vu?

[Anonymous Coward]

    Who is IBM? International Brotherhood of Magicians? International Baptist Missions? Irritable Bowel Movement?

Re:Deja vu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has been doing the same thing for the same reason for many years, but Microsoft generally fails at anything outside its core competency of flight simulators and office suites.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Deja vu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has been doing the same thing for the same reason for many years, but Microsoft generally fails at anything outside its core competency of flight simulators and office suites.

Fixed that for you.

Microsoft has been doing the same thing for the same reason for many years, but Microsoft generally fails at anything outside its core competency of flight simulators and office suites.

Fixed that for you.

Wasn't there a Slashdot article a while ago about Microsoft closing down their Flight Simulator group? Maybe they didn't go through with it, I don't remember.

Re:Deja vu?

[drsmithy]

Microsoft got where it is by committing a whole host of illegal, anti-competitive acts [...]

No, it didn't, pretty much by definition, since they couldn't have been committing "illegal, anti-competitive acts" until they were actually "there".

[...] can be legitimately said to have retarded progress over the past thirty-odd years.

How ?

Re:Deja vu?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a monopoly to be anti-competitive. For instance, using proprietary file formats vs. open file formats. Of course it's not illegal until they're prosecuted for it, and for whatever reason our government hasn't been too keen on encouraging competition in the computing market. Thank goodness technology has moved fast enough to prevent them from getting a full stranglehold on technology.

Re:Deja vu?

[ScrewMaster]

Microsoft got where it is by committing a whole host of illegal, anti-competitive acts [...]

No, it didn't, pretty much by definition, since they couldn't have been committing "illegal, anti-competitive acts" until they were actually "there".

I, uh ... what? That makes absolutely no sense. A company can certainly engage in the anticompetitive practices whether it's a monopoly or not. Granted, being a monopoly can make them more effective. You're going to have to work much, much harder if your goal is to become an effective Microsoft apologist.

[...] can be legitimately said to have retarded progress over the past thirty-odd years.

How ?

Apparently you've been asleep during that time. Microsoft has always stepped on any possible competition, and did so from day one. Nor did they have to be a monopoly to do so. I'm sure that some well-informed Slashdotters can remember more than a few companies with products and technologies that were superior to anything Microsoft was offering at the time. Microsoft did everything in its power to snuff those outfits before they could be come a threat. Dude, there's a reason that Microsoft took on the mantle of "the new IBM."

2014?

[pedantic bore]

In internet time, predicting what the most popular mobile OS will be in 2014 is like predicting what kind of music our grandchildren will like.

But as long as we're making predictions, here's mine: in 2014, the most popular popular mobile OS will be whatever the folks at Apple start secretly working on some time next year, and that doesn't get hyped out of all possible hope of satisfying consumer expectations until some time in late 2013.

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be different from Apple's whole approach. They don't want a majority of the market - they want a niche market with big margins. Apple's goal is never really more than 20% of the market.

Android is quite likely the biggest winner over the next few years. What I'm personally watching for is what RIM does. While RIM has the corporate market, they've been trying to break out of that. I'd expect the major battles to be between Android, RIM and Windows 7 Phone.

Re:2014?

[pedantic bore]

I interpret the evidence differently; Apple seems absolutely delighted with their 80% market share for MP3 players and 70% market share for downloadable music sales. I think they'd love to have a similar position in mobile platforms, although I agree that they will abandon markets that do not permit sufficient differentiation to support their target margins.

Re:2014?

[jo42]

predicting what kind of music our grandchildren will like

That's too easy. Something that you can't stand.

Re:2014?

[anandrajan]

Android is quite likely the biggest winner over the next few years. What I'm personally watching for is what RIM does. While RIM has the corporate market, they've been trying to break out of that. I'd expect the major battles to be between Android, RIM and Windows 7 Phone.

Yes, I'm watching RIM and Android carefully as well. Currently, I get crappy EDGE service at home (in Gainesville, FL) and have to resort to UMA (WiFi-based cell service) on T-Mobile in order to make/receive calls. Since Android should support SIP natively (eventually), there ought to be a Google Voice/SIP combination that replicates my UMA/Blackberry experience. Unfortunately, it looks like things will go backward for a bit before moving forward as T-Mobile plans to deprecate UMA and does not offer it on Android. It also does not look like Google Voice/SIP on Android is ready for prime time at present.

Re:2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

predicting what kind of music our grandchildren will like

That's too easy. Something that you can't stand.

Damn it I was hoping Hip Hop would die soon :(

And I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict that Android will get so fragmented and so over-controlled by the carriers that in the end it won't matter because Android programmers will get tired of all the conditional programming required to code for the damn things.

Re:And I predict...

[Darkness404]

I actually think that Android won't become super fragmented but will break into 3 main branches

A) The "dumbphone or device" branch, devices that barely support their current version of Android loaded on them. (things running 1.5 that aren't phones like the Nook would be an example of this)

B) The "Stables" branch, everyday devices running a simi-current Android release (things running 2.1 right now would be an example)

C) The "bleeding edge" branch, high powered devices either easily rooted or pre-rooted that run the newest Android available (devices like the Nexus One would fall into here)

So developers would probably use branch A to make basic applications, use branch B to make things like games and branch C to make tech demos.

Fragmentation will be less and less of an issue the more phones that get rooted and the slower Google releases OS updates.

Re:And I predict...

[ScrewMaster]

I actually think that Android won't become super fragmented but will break into 3 main branches

Don't forget D. Third-party ROMs like Cyanogenmod and others. They have a pretty substantial following (they're the real reason people root their phones in many cases.)

Ultimately, so long as there are carriers like T-Mobile that will let me go buy an unlocked phone (like the N1) and pop in my SIM card, fragmentation will be less of an issue.

The problem, for carriers, is that people want advanced network-based services like the so-called "Google Experience", they want the ability to run any application they choose. Carriers that refuse to acknowledge this are nothing but a business opportunity for those that do. Right now, that's why I'm on T-Mobile ... they never gave me any grief whatsoever for using my Android phone any way I wanted to. For the past year or so (since I first got a G1 and flashed it with Cyanogenmod) I've been tethering my laptop to it and running Skype, and doing other things that AT&T wouldn't allow, for example, an iPhone user to do. I pay my T-Mobile bill quite happily each month because they're giving me what I want from my carrier.

The cell phone market has changed forever now that they're not phones anymore but pocket-sized personal computers. The cellular outfits are rapidly being relegated to their proper role as telecommunications providers: fat wireless pipes, no more. They don't like that, but unfortunately in world where the terminal equipment is smarter than desktop PCs were only a few years ago, they're going to have a harder and harder time justifying such things as "airtime" and 15c per text message. And that's good: I don't expect my home broadband provider to nickel-and-dime me for using specific Internet applications and services, and ideally would rather my wireless provider didn't do anything similar. Yet, that's exactly what they're currently doing.

Re:And I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever written anything for any pre-iPhone mobile devices? You don't even know what fragmentation is if you think Android has it.

Re:And I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. That's the reason why Android market share doesn't mean anything, not even now.

Re:And I predict...

[mjwx]

Don't forget D. Third-party ROMs like Cyanogenmod and others. They have a pretty substantial following (they're the real reason people root their phones in many cases.)

As much as I like Cyanogenmod, as Android grows we will end up with more non-technical people using Android. This means that the percentage of people following community mods will shrink a lot despite more people using community mods. What this means for the modding community is actually very little, modding will always be around but for Android as a whole we'll see fewer phones running mods.

I actually disagree with the GP's android groups, what we will see is:

A: feature phones/devices. Android MP3 players, ebook readers, low end phones such as the HTC wildfire that will not see an upgrade in its lifetime. These things will be competing with OS's like Bada and Symbian.
B: Mid range devices. Things like the HTC Legend, LG Optimums, SE Xperia10. All the functions of a smart phone but cheaper hardware and slower updates.
C: High end devices. The flagship devices from each manufacturer, typically running the fastest hardware with the latest OS (or a version below). Devices like the Samsung Galaxy S, HTC Desire, Motrola Droid/Droid2.

Right now we have two minor problems, the first is the breakneck pace of Android development. This will slow down, it has to. The second are the carriers delaying updates. The HTC Desire's base 2.2 ROM has been available for a month, but few carriers have deployed it, this will change as demand gets greater and carriers want to vie for your Android dollars (at least in Europe, Asia and Australia where I can switch carriers easily).

Re:And I predict...

[jscotta44]

I think that you are wrong regarding the carrier's ceasing in delaying updates. In fact, the current trend is for the carriers to regress to how things were before the iPhone broke away from the traditional carrier controlled handsets. Take a look at how they are changing the UI on Android and how they are controlling the apps. Oh, you will see some flexibility, but unless something changes, they would all (every one of them) like to stuff that genie back into the bottle so they can go back to full control.

And here Google is actually helping them. Google does not mind the carriers screwing with the Android OS. And Google is supporting the idea of removing net neutrality regarding the wireless bandwidth. Google is certainly moving to support the carriers, at least for as long they the carriers don't interfere with Google's advertising business, which won't be for long once the carriers see how to get into it themselves.

Re:And I predict...

[mjwx]

Take a look at how they are changing the UI on Android and how they are controlling the apps.

Except thats only happening on one US carrier.

Does not constitute a pattern. US Telco's have always been more tyrannical then their European and Austral-Asian counterparts (or more precisely, we control them better).

What you forget in your blind Iphone praise and Google bashing is that carriers have never had to handle updates before. Apple didn't change a thing, in the past updates were always either A) user driven or B) manufacturer driven and it was RIM who first started doing OTA updates. Eventually, this is going to be sorted out, there are problems now because it's a new thing and it's needed because of localisation, I for one hate En_US (is not a language) on my phone, give me En_AU or En_UK not to mention number formatting differences (US xxx-xxx-xxxx, AU xxxxxxxxxx).

Re:And I predict...

[jscotta44]

Google bashing and blind iPhone praise? You are too much into the religion. I was simply commenting on the American wireless status where Google is not the "do no evil" company of old. And where in the world did I praise the iPhone?

As to the carriers and updates, they could have done updates, but that gets in the way of consumers buying new phones and restarting their 2 year contract commitments. They have had plenty of opportunities with several handsets to release phones that they could either update themselves or for another company (specifically Palm) to do a better job with the handset.

En_US is not a language? It's the language that kept most of the Europe relatively free for the past hundred years or so. If not for that En_US, you would be speaking Deutsch.

Re:And I predict...

[ScrewMaster]

En_US is not a language? It's the language that kept most of the Europe relatively free for the past hundred years or so. If not for that En_US, you would be speaking Deutsch.

More importantly, it's the current lingua franca of the industrialized world, so why he would say "is not a language" is kinda arrogant and smacks of sour grapes. I would say that the next one would be Mandarin, but given that China is investing heavily in EN_US (last I read there are more people in China learning U.S. English than there are people in the U.S.) that's probably not going to change any time soon. The GP had best get used to that.

Is symbian even used?

[Darkness404]

Is Nokia's Symbian devices every actually used outside of Europe/Asia? Because I really haven't ever seen one for it being the "number one" smartphone platform. I've seen tons of Blackberries, lots of Android devices, multiple iPhones of every generation, a few Windows Mobile devices, even a few Palm Pre/Pixis but I don't think I've seen a single Nokia smartphone with the exception of the N900 which doesn't run Symbian. So where are these? Just hiding outside of the US?

Re:Is symbian even used?

[JanneM]

"Is Nokia's Symbian devices every actually used outside of Europe/Asia?"

Europe and Asia's population is around 4.6 billion people, or 70% of the worlds population. Anything used in "only" those areas of the world is pretty damn close to ubiquitous, whether it reaches every corner of the world or not.

Re:Is symbian even used?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything used in "only" those areas of the world is pretty damn close to ubiquitous, whether it reaches every corner of the world or not.

How so? I mean, e.g. Semai is used in "only" those areas of the world, and it is far from ubiquitous. I'm sure you mean that anything in widespread common use in Europe and Asia but nowhere else is still pretty damn close to ubiquitous. But then you should just substantiate that Symbian use is widespread and common in those regions instead of being a snarky smartarse.

Re:Is symbian even used?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, Nokia sells 4 out of every 10 smart phones. Outside North America (5% of the world population), Nokia phones are practically everywhere. It's worth noticing that while the Iphone is considered a nice phone (and even a game changer) everywhere and it sells quite well, it was a smash hit mostly in the US: In most places people already had fairly good smart phones, it just wasn't that big of a deal even if the touch UI was awesome.

As a comment on this Gartner guesswork: many people dismiss the work Nokia does in the developing countries but they probably shouldn't. China and India are already massive smart phone markets and they are going to be absolutely huge. Nokia is _very_ strong in these countries.

Re:Is symbian even used?

[Joce640k]

Only in America would this be modded "insightful"...

Re:Is symbian even used?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, before iDevices, something like 90% of "smartphones" were Symbian. Nowadays, I wouldn't count them as smartphones at all, just dumbphones with some theoretical smartphone features no-one bothers to use. But perhaps ^3 will change it, time will tell.

Re:Is symbian even used?

[TheRaven64]

You probably just don't notice them. People with iPhones like to show them off, and phones that look like the iPhone are still sufficiently novel that they catch the eye. Blackberries also have a distinctive look. Nokia smartphones look like phones. Unless you are actively looking for them, you won't notice them. I'm not sure about the US market - it's relatively small and the carrier lock-down makes it largely uninteresting to handset manufacturers - but over here I see far more Nokia phones than anything else, and most of them qualify as Smartphones (although a lot are older-generation ones).

Re:Is symbian even used?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

"Oh yeah, the rest of the world, I've heard of them. Were they the ones that gives you quarters if you put teeth under your pillow? Or do you just stake them in the heart to make sure they don't suck your blood and make you one of them?"

Re:Is symbian even used?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

To be fair to the parent, Symbian and Nokia products in general are becoming less popular in Nokia's own back yard.

What business types need to consider is whether or not it's going to be worth it for Nokia to keep pumping out Symbian/MeeGo/$futureOSHere or to just jump ship and start shipping Android or Windows Mobile.

Sure, market share's a great number to consider but it's only one factor when you also consider profit margins and consumer enthusiasm.

Re:Is symbian even used?

[Anonymous Coward]

NOOO!!!

Those phones were and are awesome. You must be a dumb American to not recognize the automatic Euro-superiority of the Nokia experience. I only wish my countrymen were smart enough to bow down to the meaningless feature bloat Nokia offers.

Re:Is symbian even used?

[jonbryce]

And cellphone penetration in that part of the world is much higher than in the US. For example, 88% of the population of the US has a cellphone, compared with 95% of the population of the EU (source CIA World Fact Book).

Re:Is symbian even used?

[Beliskner]

Symbian smartphones are 3 times more popular than iphones - source Apple has 14% marketshare and Symbian smartphones has 41% marketshare

Re:Is symbian even used?

[yorugua]

> Is Nokia's Symbian devices every actually used outside of Europe/Asia?

Yes. I live in South America, and work in Argentina. I travel to the US at least once a year. I own a E71. My wife a E51. It supports my companies VPN, email, even putty, and instant messaging. Battery (on the E71 at least) is very good. I even run Garmin XT so I don't need a standalone GPS most of the time.

At least three of my buddies in the company own E71's as well. So yes, they are actually used :) How about market share? Wouldn't know....

Re:Is symbian even used?

[ScrewMaster]

Only in America would this be modded "insightful"...

So, a poster on a U.S. Web site acknowledges that there's actually more to the world than the United States ... and you criticize him? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Re:Is symbian even used?

[caluml]

Just hiding outside of the US?

Wow. Just wow. What an amazing view of the world you have.
That's virtually like saying Bin Laden is hiding outside your house.

Re:Is symbian even used?

[ChunderDownunder]

Where I live, outside the US, the N97 is somewhat popular but outsold by iPhones.

mine is symbian but not Nokia! The Vivaz was available on a $29AU/mth plan. Comparably specced iPhones and Androids were more like $50/mth.

Where Nokia ought to be concerned by Android is at the low-end where it's been allowed to stagnate by churning out S60v3 'dumb' phones, with seemingly no competition.

Re:Is symbian even used?

[stewbacca]

My wife would love a Nokia Sybian device, for sure.

Re:Is symbian even used?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the iPhone was still a big deal in everywhere. I went to Japan expecting to see all kinds of super technology from the future, especially in mobile phones. Instead I saw iPhones everywhere.

The place they were more advanced was not in smart phones, but in dumb phones. People were reading websites and books on their "free with plan" type flipphones, and everyone texted. The difference there is not in the technology though, it's in the pricing. Apparently in most of the world data like texting is actually priced appropriately, and is far cheaper than buying more minutes for your phone.

i agree with the analysts

[shadowrat]

Android will become the most popular OS by 2014, or it will not.

Re:i agree with the analysts

[ScrewMaster]

Android will become the most popular OS by 2014, or it will not.

Android handsets are already outselling iPhones. I don't think it will take until 2014 until it's eclipsed just about everyone in the market. It's even shipping on devices that don't even have cellular access, so sales are probably much better than we are being led to believe. About the only thing I see slowing it down at all would be Oracle's lawsuit, but that won't have much effect outside the U.S. if it goes badly for Google. The open source daemon is pretty hard to stuff back in the bottle once it's out, trademark and patent concerns aside. All that may happen here is that we can't get an Android phone in the U.S. for a while.

Does this take into account...

[phillymjs]

...that the carriers are beginning to resort to their old tricks on the new Android phones? Stuff like replacing Google search with Bing and not letting you change it back, loading phones up with unremovable crapware, locking down tethering, banning installation of non-Marketplace apps, etc.

Before anyone replies, "Well, just root the phone to get around that stuff! Duh!" let me remind you that geeks who are willing and able to do so are far, far outnumbered by normal people who just want to use their goddamn phone, not tinker with it.

Re:Does this take into account...

[TyFoN]

You still have the choice of buying an unbranded phone. Why anyone would buy a phone that is locked to one carrier is beyond me, but it might be different over the pond in the US.

Re:Does this take into account...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's cheaper!

Re:Does this take into account...

[demonlapin]

A short explanation of the US mobile market is in order.

There are four national networks, and they are owned by AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint. Verizon and Sprint use CDMA rather than GSM, and they won't activate each other's devices. You want Verizon, you have to buy a Verizon phone; same for Sprint.

If you want to activate an unlocked phone on AT&T or T-Mobile, you can. However, each of them has different frequencies assigned for 3G service. As a result, you can only get EDGE data rates if your phone isn't designed for their network.

In other words, since you have to buy a phone that only works on one carrier, and since only T-Mobile offers a lower-cost plan if you bring your own phone, there is a strong incentive to buy a new phone every two years with the carrier subsidy - you won't get cheaper service if you forgo it.

Re:Does this take into account...

[Seto89]

Also an important difference from Europe - Verizon and Sprint don't use SIM cards.

Re:Does this take into account...

[gilesjuk]

I would say that sim-free handset owners are in the minority, mainly because it is geeks who want the handset totally unlocked and unbranded. Geeks are still a minority or Linux's market share would be much higher.

Regardless of the potential cost savings, people just look at the money they have to pay up front and just go for a contract.

Re:Does this take into account...

[uncanny]

I think verizon has a few customers

Re:Does this take into account...

[TyFoN]

Ugh, that sounds horrible and extremely anti-competitive. AFAIK we have about 50 different mobile operators for soon to be 5 million people in Norway. And they all use GSM. If you want to switch to another operator you can use the same phone and telephone number.
It would explain the operator locked phones you have though, thank you :)

Re:Does this take into account...

[ScrewMaster]

You still have the choice of buying an unbranded phone. Why anyone would buy a phone that is locked to one carrier is beyond me, but it might be different over the pond in the US.

It is. Many carriers simply don't allow phones not purchased from them on their networks. But I agree: why we put up with that is ridiculous. I'm on T-Mobile here (e.g. Deutsche Telekom) and they've been by far the best carrier I've used (I don't know if any Germans would agree with that assessment) but that's probably because they're the underdog next to AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. Still, if there was any reason to believe that competition is good for the consumer, this is it. I've been on AT&T (voice service was spotty in my area, no customer service issues), Sprint (good service, damn near criminal billing practices and unintelligible CS reps), U.S. Cellular (decent at the time) and now T-Mobile. So long as they keep it up, I'll stick with them.

Re:Does this take into account...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before anyone replies, "Well, just root the phone to get around that stuff! Duh!" let me remind you that geeks who are willing and able to do so are far, far outnumbered by normal people who just want to use their goddamn phone, not tinker with it.

Those "normal" people will not care if their phone is hobbled by the carrier. As long as some form of functionality is accessible (some search, some real browsing, some media playback, some versions of other software functionality), they will be happy.

The difference is in the development ecosystem. With Apple, they will always have their boot on the neck of anyone who develops for iOS, protecting not only their profits, but their brand image and their vertical integration strategy. There seems to be no such counterpart with Android. If one handset mfr. or carrier is a money grubbing control freak with their implementation, innovation can still take place elsewhere and reach a critical mass where it is a "must include" feature on all Android devices.

Re:Does this take into account...

[LurkerXXX]

If you are talking UK, sure. If you are talking US, no. Not by a long shot. An unlocked handset does a geek about zero good in the US because the other carrier you might want to switch to either uses another technology, or another frequency than the carrier you were with before.

Re:Does this take into account...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, I think those 50 Norwegian operators are either regional operators grouping up into couple competing provider organisations, or virtual operators buing the capacity from bigger players. At least the market in Finland isn't so fragmented - there are four or so big operators that mostly redundant networks, and sub-branded operators and virtual operators that piggyback these. Well, they all use the same frequency bands, though, and the biggest nuisance in changing an operator is the latency number mobility causes (worse if one has accidentally made 12- or 24-month contract). Still, it's trivial, and the prices are low enough especially in comparison to average income.

Especially delivering different frequency bands to different operators in the US fashion sounds like a well-lobbied success story for operators, making consumers extremely unlikely to switch networks on a whim like they can do in Europe, or pretty much any other competetive operator market. I have a hunch that all the standardization and most of the criteria for operator licenses were intentionally set in Europe in a way that consumers could switch from one network to another without a need for getting a new device... I don't have an authoritative source at hand, though.

Of course, FCC and such would speak of creating market opportunities, efficiencies and incentives and whatever to the operators by this frequency band distribution. Surprisingly enough, completely opposite strategy has produced at least as good results across the pond... at least for consumers options.

Re:Does this take into account...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... the GP very clearly stated that "Verizon and Sprint use CDMA rather than GSM," and SIM cards fall under the GSM standard.

Re:Does this take into account...

[coryking]

Those "normal" people will not care if their phone is hobbled by the carrier.

I don't know if that is true anymore. The market for mobile apps might have shifted just enough that people will want "killer apps" on their phone. If the cell companies start locking stuff so that you can only buy through their app store, people won't buy the phone.

Now, all the crapplets and custom branding? Just look at how much of that shit is on the average laptop. The average buyer either doesn't care, or does care but thinks it is too much of a hassle to remove.

Even if the way americans buy cell phones changes, and we start buying unlocked phones, the crapplets will remain—they will just be from the vendor that sold the phone.

But locked down app stores (in the "must be signed by and bought in the AT&T / Verison mega-mall to run on this phone sense, not the apple app store sense") days are numbered.

Re:Does this take into account...

[Anonymous Coward]

A short explanation of the US mobile market is in order.

There are four national networks, and they are owned by AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint. Verizon and Sprint use CDMA rather than GSM, and they won't activate each other's devices. You want Verizon, you have to buy a Verizon phone; same for Sprint.

If you want to activate an unlocked phone on AT&T or T-Mobile, you can. However, each of them has different frequencies assigned for 3G service. As a result, you can only get EDGE data rates if your phone isn't designed for their network.

In other words, since you have to buy a phone that only works on one carrier, and since only T-Mobile offers a lower-cost plan if you bring your own phone, there is a strong incentive to buy a new phone every two years with the carrier subsidy - you won't get cheaper service if you forgo it.

The 3G issue won't be a problem when quadband 3G radios start showing up in cell phones, iphone4 already has this.

Re:Does this take into account...

[demonlapin]

Well, I didn't count regional operators or MVNOs. So it does sound a bit worse than it is. And we do have full inter-network number portability if you decide to change.

But you're right. It's crazy. Maybe LTE will change things somewhat, putting all the carriers on one technology, but I doubt it - the FCC just doesn't care enough. About the only thing we've managed to get out of the carriers is truly nationwide service with unlimited long distance and no roaming, which (if you use it) is a great deal. In this sense, US mobile service is like Apple - you can't get something cheap, and you have to buy it all from one provider, but you really do get a premium product for all that money.

Re:Does this take into account...

[shutdown -p now]

Thanks for so eloquently explaining the wonders of free unregulated market (the one which wasn't forcibly standardized on GSM).

Re:Does this take into account...

[mjwx]

In other words, since you have to buy a phone that only works on one carrier, and since only T-Mobile offers a lower-cost plan if you bring your own phone, there is a strong incentive to buy a new phone every two years with the carrier subsidy - you won't get cheaper service if you forgo it.

Also, T-Mobile is the only US carrier that operates on Band I (2100 MHz) so they are the only US carrier that can support the vast majority of phones sold in Europe, Australia and Asia.

Re:Does this take into account...

[demonlapin]

Calling anything in telecommunications a "free unregulated market" is profoundly inaccurate. It's one of the best examples out there of entrenched companies using government regulation to put up barriers to entry. As the old saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

When the regulatory apparatus that we have isn't used properly, it makes me suspicious of just how effective a bigger regulatory apparatus would be. After all, the FCC could have declared that AT&T and T-Mobile would share 3G frequencies, or that Verizon and Sprint would have to activate each other's devices, as a condition of their spectrum licenses.

Re:Does this take into account...

[demonlapin]

T-Mobile in the US uses Band IV, which uses 2100 only for the downstream data, not upstream. Wikipedia article.

Re:Does this take into account...

[mjwx]

T-Mobile in the US uses Band IV, which uses 2100 only for the downstream data, not upstream. Wikipedia article.

T-mo uses Band I and Band IV. The upgrade to band I (using 2100 for both channels) was made earlier this year, T-Mo are now selling Band I only devices as well as Band IV. As always dont rely on Wikipedia as an authoritative source of information.

Re:Does this take into account...

[demonlapin]

Factual corrections are always appreciated, but your link says only that TMo USA insists that their phones be capable of Band I, not that they use it in the USA. Do you have a link saying they use band I in the US?

Re:Does this take into account...

[mjwx]

but your link says only that TMo USA insists that their phones be capable of Band I

Which means their network is capable of Band I. Previously you and Wikipedia is quite correct, T-Mo US used Band IV (1700/2100 AWS) but their network upgrade earlier this year (where they were given control over the full 2100 spectrum by the FCC) means that they now use Band I and Band IV. Previously, T-Mo was only given half of the 2100 MHz spectrum so they were forced to use AWS.

That and I know people who've personally been able to use a T-Mo SIM with their Australian phones (2100/900, same as Europe).

Factual corrections are always appreciated,

Always nice to see a bit of maturity on /.

Re:Does this take into account...

[shutdown -p now]

Good point. You're basically right that the real problem in U.S. isn't so much lack of regulation as it is regulation in the interests of the big business (rather than society). The point, anyway, is that it's not regulation per se that is bad - but rather its abuse.

Re:Does this take into account...

[Pecisk]

I just have to say this - poor bastards. This is utterly fucked up system and illogical one.

Re:Does this take into account...

[demonlapin]

Well, the problem with regulation is that any regulatory scheme tends to be captured by the regulated entities, especially if there's money involved. There's no way that we could avoid having an FCC - somebody has to allocate spectrum - but I think far too many people have a default of "regulate it" when the opposite should be true. Unless there's a problem - a big problem, not covered by any existing law - leave it the hell alone. And industry-sponsored groups can be quite useful - like the IIHS or UL. Since the industry is going to end up regulating itself anyway, why give them the color of law? ;)

Re:Does this take into account...

[Anonymous Coward]

good example of i want to sell my pie and eat it too , if you want a phone unclutered by cell carriers , dont buy it from them , i dont and love my HTC , granted we are getting ripped off on unblocked phones (i paid mine 20% of the price it was selling in my home town while visiting in HK

hogwash

[Anonymous Coward]

needs to be qualified to read "most popular 'SMARTPHONE' operating system". globally, ordinary mobiles ("non smartphones") will still rule the roost in 4 years.

Re:hogwash

[ScrewMaster]

needs to be qualified to read "most popular 'SMARTPHONE' operating system". globally, ordinary mobiles ("non smartphones") will still rule the roost in 4 years.

Well, sure. I thought that was implicitly stated, since by definition a non-smartphone isn't going to run Android.

Re:hogwash

[tepples]

by definition a non-smartphone isn't going to run Android.

Smartphone, or smart MP3 player? Archos makes Android-powered MP3 players; the one hitch is they don't have Android Market.

Re:hogwash

[neminem]

They do now :). I have one myself, and for a while you could hack your way into having the Market available (it wasn't that hard a hack, either). A few months ago, though, they signed off on officially supporting it. I can't remember whether I actually ever updated to the new version, or if I'm still using the old version with the hacked Market. But either way, I have an Archos 5, and it connects to the Market and downloads stuff just fine. In any case, though, it's clear your parent meant "by definition, a phone that is not smart, isn't". So sort of off-topic.

Choice is bad?

[symbolset]

Ah, the "choice is bad" argument. All of Android's competitors have to argue this because it's the feature of Android that they don't have and can't get. Good luck selling that to people who expect 15 different kinds of bottled water at their corner store.

What do you mean "old" tricks?

[kervin]

Stuff like replacing Google search with Bing and not letting you change it back, loading phones up with unremovable crapware

How is that different from the IPhone or the other incumbents? I agree, I really hate these tactics, but I just don't see what's new about them.

Re:What do you mean "old" tricks?

[quacking duck]

Perhaps it's different outside of North America, but here (US and Canada) carriers were notorious for taking a phone with all the latest whiz-bang features (Bluetooth, wifi, tethering, etc) and loading them with custom firmware that crippled them. You had to either pay an ridiculous monthly fee to re-enable them, if they even allowed you.

Another neat trick was making a physical button on "dumb" phones launch the web browser to the company's website. This button would be right near the Call or End-Call button so you could easily hit it accidentally--bang, instant $5 extra for "web access without a plan" for the month, because few were dumb enough to actually include a web access plan on such crap phones. And you couldn't de-program the button either. The aforementioned crapware you couldn't uninstall or hide.

You would also likely never see a carrier-specific firmware update to fix any of the problems with the phone.

Apple was the first phone manufacturer in NA market to remove the carrier's claws from the user experience of post-paid plans. No carrier logo when starting the phone. No carrier-disabled features, tethering aside on AT&T. No 3rd party crapware you couldn't get rid of. Free firmware updates--the second-generation model (iPhone 3G) has seen two major OS updates and several minor ones.

Granted there are features Apple doesn't offer that other phones do (wifi station being my occasional gripe), and sometimes AT&T's inadequacies limits iPhone capabilities beyond USA borders (just because AT&T is crap doesn't mean the rest of the world's carriers can't handle video chat and high-quality Youtube over 3G), but to date the carriers have no real say as to what goes on the iPhone, or what features to disable.

With Android, carriers are free to return to their old ways unchecked.

Re:What do you mean "old" tricks?

[insertwackynamehere]

Before I argue how it's different, could you clarify how it's the same? (because it's not)

Re:What do you mean "old" tricks?

[ekhben]

Apple keeping the carriers out of the phone operating system was by far the greatest contribution of the iPhone to the mobile market place, in my opinion. I'll take slavish obedience to Apple over slavish obedience to my carrier.

(And my carrier has never let me get away with anything so cheap as US$99/yr to develop and install whatever the hell I like on my phone - remember, Apple's restrictions all apply at the App Store's gates, as a tinkerer, I have no issues and no need to jailbreak my phone).

1300% growth rate

[Colin Smith]

Android has something like a 1300% growth rate. If we extrapolate that forever, we can see that Android is going to take over the entire universe in approximately 15 years.

 

Re:1300% growth rate

[Citizen of Earth]

If we extrapolate a puppy's growth rate from the first month of its life, we can conclude that it will be a 400-foot-tall trashing downtown Tokyo by age four.

Poor Oracle

[Phucilage]

Poor Oracle, they file a silly greed based lawsuit that may or may not even be valid. How stupid are they going to feel in court when the Jury, whose never heard of Oracle, but all love Google (read: helps them find pr0n, food, everything...) stare dumbly at them and wonder why they're picking on their friends!

But seriously, I highly doubt this is going to set Android back much, if at all. Even with an injunction (and however much time it would take them to get, sometimes quick, sometimes not at all), if what I've read is accurate (who knows?), they shouldn't stand a chance. As for Android, the lawsuit's gonna bring more attention to it, hurrays for free advertising!

Not Android's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a problem with buying a subsidized phone from US carriers--it's going to be crippled in some way, not Android itself. Europe doesn't have this issue and you can still buy unlocked phones on the internet.

I'm not impressed...

[Godskitchen]

If they had "predicted" this 12 to 18 months ago it might be a different story.

Who is dumb enough to trust Gartner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it universally accepted that Gartner is full of crap. They either sell corporate advertisement as objective study, or repeat things people already know. The non-techie consumer doesn't care if it's Android underneath. They just want a phone that looks great and does what they want. Gartner should just come out and admit their a bump of cheap whores.

Most Deployed != Most Popular

[Above]

When the carriers have as much, or more to do with the selection than the consumer...

Why bother?

[MelodicMotives]

Why anyone ever bothers predicting technological domination three years out is beyond me. Will Android even exist then? Will there be another technology in its place? Three years is a long time in the software world.

Re:Why bother?

[jonbryce]

It's not that long. If some stealth mode start-up anounced their product tomorrow morning, how long would it take them to build up a significant market share?

How accurate are Gartner Group predictions?

[serutan]

After some online research into Gartner Group accuracy I haven't been able to find any analysis whatsoever. A couple years ago one of their analysts commented that they periodically review their accuracy and issue reports listing some of their hits and misses. Given the number of managers who take Gartner's word as gospel, that doesn't seem like enough. I'm surprised that this question hasn't come up more often.

Re:How accurate are Gartner Group predictions?

[Lord Grey]

In 2006, four years ago, did Gartner predict the success of the Android operating system in the mobile market? No?

I didn't think so. No reason to start believing them now, either.

Re:How accurate are Gartner Group predictions?

[serutan]

I'm curious about their overall track record. Making a judgement about them based on the fact that they missed one particular prediction is no smarter than believing everything they say.

Oblig xkcd

[angloquebecer]

http://xkcd.com/605/

Parent is not a troll

[Cryacin]

I'm not new here, but I'm sad to see that cognitive arguments such as above are marked troll. Wish I had some mod points to fix this.

Re:Parent is not a troll

[ScrewMaster]

It's full of opinions masquerading as facts, as well as outright falsehoods. It has now reached +5 Insightful because of the well known Slashdot tendency to mod up anything that bashes Microsoft, no matter how tenuously said bashing is related to the topic. In fact, I suspect that's why you liked it.

If I misspoke myself, feel free to correct me (with facts, since you brought that up) rather than simply doing the same thing you claim I did. Furthermore, the poster I was replying to made a comparison to Microsoft and IBM that I felt was unwarranted. So your "tenuousness" complaint is likewise unwarranted.

And one last point, this is a public forum where people go to express their opinions. That's what I was doing. If you are unable to determine when a person is expressing an opinion or making a statement as to fact, I respectfully suggest that you are on the wrong Web site.

Apple may not lose market share with Android gains

[perpenso]

The Wall Street Journal also had analysis; they said that Apple can afford to lose a chunk of market share (in a growing market) and instead should worry about the competition driving the price down. Here's the story (do the google-the-URL thing to get a good Referer: if it doesn't show the whole thing).

It is not a given that Apple will lose market share. Apple may not be the player that is displaced by Android. Android is more likely to displace all the in-house operating systems being used by the handset manufacturers. For example Nokia could announce that they have dropped Nokia OS and Symbian OS and will use Android for all upcoming handsets.

The situation is not unlike Linux and Microsoft. Despite Microsoft being widely perceived as the competitor to Linux, it was really Sun Microsystems and other traditional Unix vendors that were displaced. Similarly I expect it will largely be the traditional handset operating systems that will be displaced, not necessarily Apple.

And Apple...

[Danathar]

Will be making bumper profits as having the largest market share has nothing to do with being profitable.

Apple goes beyond smart phone market

[perpenso]

iPhone share on global smartphone market has hovered around 13-15% for some time now, and there's no signs of it actually getting higher - so, 10% or less can happen pretty soon.

Things are a little more complicated, looking only at smart phones is a little limiting. Apple's iOS is not merely a phone operating system. Note that the iPod touch is displacing the iPod Classic and iPod Nano, the later being somewhat downgraded into a touchscreen version of the iPod Shuffle. Also note that the iPad is displacing net books to some degree. Finally, return to the iPod touch again and notice that with a back facing camera and the FaceTime app you basically have video calling wherever you have wifi, both parties need to be using an iOS device but if a Skype type application is approved for the iPod touch that could change. Apple is not really in the phone business, rather the mobile device business. I doubt they care much if they sell an iPhone or an iPod touch or iPad.

Could Android be used on non-phone devices? Certainly. That would make things a little easier to compare iOS and Android.

"Popular" and "Useful" not nearly the same thing

[VeryVito]

As a developer on a few mobile platforms, I foresee that Android will be popular for carriers and manufacturers, because it's free. But for consumers, it will, by 2014, be no more useful than any previous handset OS: Your phone WILL be locked into the apps, settings and themes governed by the carrier, and the number of "stellar" apps will dwindle considerably. Unless the carriers subsidize development for their particular handset, there will be very little incentive for major developers to waste time on such a fragmented market.

Gartner predict OS/2 would prevail

[dpbsmith]

Circa 1990 Gartner published numerical graphs showing exactly how OS/2 would become the predominant PC operating system within, IIRC, three or four years.

People will pay money for anyone claiming to make predictions, and the miracle is that no number of bad past predictions ever seems to affect the credibility of the fortunetellers.

Re:Gartner predict OS/2 would prevail

[Anonymous Coward]

Gartner's predictions are based on who pays them the most. That's it.

Just take a look at their quadrant on 'monitoring software'. HP ITO is said to be the leader in the market but from my experience it isn't. Bugger all people use it and from my experience with it, it's a pile of junk.

In fact, HP are quite high in all their quadrants - HP must pay them a hell of a lot of money...

Re:Deja vu? not even close

[Locutus]

when Google starts putting out products which they must pay companies to use or else they would fail in the open market, only then does Google _begin_ to act like Microsoft. Windows CE is a prime example of this since Android is the topic. And know that Microsoft had to sign money losing marketing deals with netbook makers to get them to boost netbook hardware along with purchasing licenses for Windows XP. Steve Ballmer said that was a mistake after that program cost Microsoft millions of dollars but won it 2/3 of the netbook OS market. From what I've seen of Android, it is a very functional and usable platform.

And let's not forget when Microsoft also paid vendors to not show or talk about anything but Windows Mobile 6.5 in the year Android first hit the market. Even though many of these companies were going to have an Android phone on the market months before the lack luster Windows Mobile 6.5 phones. When Google starts pulling these kinds of marketing stunts, then and only then can you even start to consider them the "new Microsoft". IMO

LoB

I wouldn't trust Gartner to predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

what I'll have for breakfast tomorrow.

"The magic quadrant shows that toast and jam is a leader. Eggs and bacon is a visionary, but their ability to execute is limited by their open source nature. Oatmeal is at the Peak of Inflated Expectations, while cereal is approaching the Plateau Of Productivity. There is a 73% chance that Microsoft will dominate the breakfast market with the next release of MS Exchange in 2014"

I used to read lots of Gartner reports as part of my job, and the company used to commission special reports to cheer up risk-averse managers.

The commissioned reports were rubbish, a number of them ended with blatant requests for the author (supposed to be an industry expert in the field) to get paid $5K a day to come and do more research for us.

Their standard reports, in my opinion, reflect whichever vendor is paying them the most. Vendors can pay Gartner in many ways, for example by commissioning special reports from them or by giving Gartner prominence in conferences, helping them suck in new chumps.

Re:Apple may not lose market share with Android ga

[zuperduperman]

No mod points today - but I totally agree. Google has done something very clever which the other vendors have not - they have not tried to take Apple head on, but instead they've picked a bunch of different areas where the iPhone is weak and made Android strong in those areas. They are moving into heavily differentiating Android based on advanced features integrated with Google services (integrated voice recognition / control that is ubiquitous, for example). These are things that are *really*, *really* hard for competitors to reproduce. So you can't go into a store and look at an Android phone next to an iPhone and do a direct comparison - "this one has better graphics, this one has a nicer contacts list, this one has better facebook integration, ... " etc. You have to make a choice between a completely different paradigm. This means that despite the hype, Android is not really competing with iPhone directly, rather only in a secondary sense. Compare with WP7 where it seems that Microsoft is very much going down the line of out-Apple-ing Apple. There are some differentiators but mainly they seem like they plan to take on Apple where Apple is strong - super smooth UI, great gaming, controlled experience. I wish them luck but I strongly doubt anybody can out-Apple Apple. You don't fight an enemy on their home turf, you make them fight you where they are not comfortable.

It'll be an interesting 12 months, that's for sure.

Not without a fight

[Anonymous Coward]

At the moment the Android platform is looking rosy, all things are pointing in the right direction, but the truth will be rather different if some very significant challenges are not met. The problem can be best described by this article about Android Fragmentation. In the article they don't just go over the red-herring about fragmentation, but really discuss the bigger issues that the android platform has to cover. Carrier Stupidity.

One problem with the Gartner report

[humblecoder]

I saw this report and blogged about it yesterday (shameless plus: click on the link in my sig to read it). Basically my opinion is that if Verizon gets the iPhone then this could kill Android.

CDMA Subscriber Identify Module

[tepples]

Uh... the GP very clearly stated that "Verizon and Sprint use CDMA rather than GSM," and SIM cards fall under the GSM standard

Then please allow me to rephrase Seto89's comment:

Also an important difference from Europe - Verizon and Sprint don't use CSIM cards.

This is why you license

[nurb432]

This is why you license your tech out to anyone that wants it instead of keeping it in house. You can have the lesser product but there is more of it out there so you win by default. Sure you make less, but you get more back in volume ( and you marginalize the competition )

A lesson you would have thought Apple would have learned when IBM did it to them in the 80s. I guess not.

Re:Apple may not lose market share with Android ga

[Anonymous Coward]

wait, did you just suggest that apples strong point is its gaming?

as much as i hate Microsoft, they wipe the floor for gaming thanks to the shear level of Game Developer interest there is in windows.

Re:Apple may not lose market share with Android ga

[zuperduperman]

Yep, I did. On mobile platforms iOS (particularly the iPod Touch) is huge and growing rapidly. It's an awesome gaming platform with major studios now investing heavily in big titles. It will be interesting to see if they do the same for WP7.

But still making 3% of the profits

[gig]

Apple makes 50% of the profits, Nokia makes 25%, RIM makes 15%, and all the rest divvy up the other 10%. All of Android combined makes 3%. Motorola has not made any money on Android at all, and will likely be out of the business in 2014.

So who is going to be making all those 2014 Android phones? Or will users just make their own on a breadboard by 2014?

Re:Apple may not lose market share with Android ga

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a given that Apple will lose market share. Apple may not be the player that is displaced by Android. Android is more likely to displace all the in-house operating systems being used by the handset manufacturers. For example Nokia could announce that they have dropped Nokia OS and Symbian OS and will use Android for all upcoming handsets.

People that are suggesting that Nokia would drop Series 40 and especially Nokia OS (the lowest price class) for Android any time soon obviously don't have any kind of an idea what they're talking about. Nokia OS devices are some of the simplest mobile phones - prices at $15-$30 unsubsidized on their primary markets, yet battery life of literally weeks of standby. Android has to take huge leaps to get anywhere close that - or Nokia has to make immensely idiotic decisions and basically discard one of its' most stable markets that build large portion of its' brand recognition and potential to sell midrange handsets to hundreds of millions of customers per year.

It would appear that Series 40 is eventually getting squeezed away by Symbian^X variants. Adoption of Android is not entirely impossible, but it's still pretty hard to see what concrete benefits it'd bring to the company that has so much invested on its' own software platform development over couple last years, just now starting to bring the change to the public.

Summary is Wrong

[Etiko]

Dear Slashdot Editors, Your summary is wrong. Gartner predicted that Android will be the second biggest in 2014, just a bit below Symbian, which will still be number 1. Here's a link to a much better article on the subject: http://www.gsmarena.com/smartphone_market_grew_55_percent_ios_declining_by_2014-news-1924.php

Gartner Predicts... So what?

[1s44c]

Gartner have a long history of predicting all sorts of things. Sadly their predictions are no more accurate than asking /dev/urandom. It's not that they are rubbish, it's that they try to predict the unpredictable. Gartner only exists for PHB types who take their guidance from anyone with a bigger budget than themselves, not for educated people who make their own predictions.

Itanium will knock Xeons out of the market by 2010

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

From 2004:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/25/gartner_analyst_explains_hp/

I actually believe Android being #1 is much more likely than Itanium ever was, but either way their track record sucks.

Even so, what does it mean? Apple has a long track record of making money when not being the #1 position. Only apple will have decent hardware margins. It will be like the PC industry, with razor thin margins in hardware.

2003 Prediction

[jscotta44]

And in 2003, they predicted that Windows Mobile would rule the mobile market. I see how accurate that is.

An opinion is not "a fact you dont like"

[Zero__Kelvin]

"It's full of opinions masquerading as facts, as well as outright falsehoods."

No, it isn't. It is full of facts that some people cannot or will not accept, so they confuse those facts with opinion in order to justify refusing to accept those facts, even though they have in fact been proved in a court of Law on more than one occasion.