Slashdot Mirror
Woz Says Android Will Dominate
cloudcreator writes "Woz [said] that Android smartphones, not the iPhone, would become dominant, noting that the Google OS is likely to win the race similarly to the way that Windows ultimately dominated the PC world." Update: 11/19 04:54 GMT by T : Apparently, Woz's words were taken slightly out of context.
Isn't it obvious?
Open technology will always win over closed
Just like Linux....
er, hmm, never mind.
Use what you want and leave the "I win"/"you win" dogma aside.
Gone!
Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API. Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.
Everything we've always said here about avoiding monocultures and the need for competition remains true. The phone market is actually much bigger in volume than the PC market, so a number of cultures could flourish and still have good economies of scale. So long as standards are enforced on security and the actual radio and phone parts, it shouldn't matter.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Gaming will play a measurable role in this. As things stand now, iOS is trouncing Android, as far as gaming is concerned. Pretty much the only leg up that Android has is the fact that there are multiple emulators available directly from the market, with no need to mod your phone in any way to use (don't even have to click the "non-marketplace applications" option.)
Besides that though, iOS is handily beating Android when it comes to gaming. Some developers are finally starting to wake up, and are either porting things over or making things specifically for it. I maintain that until there are more quality games out there for Android, iOS will continue to have a substantial lead.
Note: I'm not implying that gaming alone is the reason for the divide, but it certainly plays a role.
Living With a Nerd
Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.
No it doesn't. That would certainly help but it's not necessary. If you read the very short article:
However, he then conceded that, "Android phones have more features," and offer more choice for more people. Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.
Emphasis mine. You're mostly right about Windows (I think marketing should be mentioned) but Android could fail on 5% of the phones that ship with it and I think it will still be okay if it can match iOS in the above categories. I think everyone knows that two or three years from now Android will be the clear winner. There would have to be earth shattering changes made on either Android or Apple's part in order to shake off course what has been set in motion. Even the market analysts have been saying this.
Let's face it, there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing. That's not a bad thing, it's just the reality of targeting all the devices made by the Open Handset Alliance. That's a lot of devices. That's a lot of choices. They're doing the best they can but at some point you just can't magically give hardware support to a device that doesn't have the hardware. And I think that problem is inseparable from the choices Android wants to give consumers.
My work here is dung.
Woz is arguing that it's the featureset that will lead Android to victory. I don't agree. Features don't sell the phones. So long as it covers all the most common bases the extra stuff is just nice to have, it's not a key decision point. Any smartphone could become dominant at the moment so long as it has a good interface, looks ok, gives the user access to the software they want and, crucially, is marketed well enough. Even if iOS lags behind on features Apple won't be lagging behind on marketing. It's what they're good at, and ultimately it's what will keep them on top.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Windows didn't dominate because of random events. It piggy-backed on the popularity of the hardware, specifically the IBM PC. When the PC won, so too did MS-DOS and its overlay called windows. If the PC had died, so too would have DOS and windows.
Android doesn't have the advantage of sitting on the #1 piece of hardware like windows had.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
As long as both platforms keep making their customers happy I don't see why they won't both continue to do well. If neither knocks the other to irrelevance it's not "dominant".
Apple does great holding the line on the "premium" phone, making lots of money for their shareholders. Android does great at providing a vast array of choices at varying levels of cost.
The concern with domination is that a dominant player will crush all opposition and bring progress to a halt to protect its monopoly. I don't see that happening with either of these players. The player in the field that plays that way is having a hard time getting his game on.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It's hard for me to look at Apple as a loser in this battle. They may not win the marketshare battle, but they are very profitable and influential. People generally love their products.
Not bad for coming in second place.
The difference is that if Android wins then the community can assemble a working Android clone from the Android kernel itself and a cobbled-together userspace, because Android is documented and itself assembled from Open technologies (even if there is some debate over how Free they are, which I hope and suspect will turn out to be pure FUD.) But Apple has substantial closed-source componentry above the kernel layer in their operating systems, so while it's probably possible there too it would probably be much more difficult.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think hardware architecture has a lot to do with this, too. Any good embedded engineering focus company can design their hardware and work with it with Android. Why? Because everyone knows the OS capabilities of the Linux kernel and how portable it is, that makes it easy. Woz has a point, but just a small one, Windows was dominant because it worked across the multitude of PC platforms and wasn't tied to specific hardware (al la RISC and Apple) Although Apple did have it's selling points, anything that's more encompassing that doesn't lock a consumer down is going to get tried and, more times than none, chosen over the competitor that doesn't.
Today, however, Apple makes some pretty bad-ass and inferior products that 'wow' you on functionality and usability from a UI perspective. I myself own a few device with iOS on them and their UI experience alone is worth the product. Android OS is just too portable not to use and it's using the Linux kernel; that alone gets you over the barrier and into competition because anyone can slap it on whatever hardware they want with for less reason and stand up a working product.
He is a techie. Jobs is the business genius. Apple does not need to dominate to make a tidy profit. It's like that saying, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Microsoft does all of the people some of the time. Apple does some of the people all of the time.
Microsoft dominates the desktop. Does Apple care? Not as long as some folks are still willing to pay a premium for their desktop products. Nokia dominates cell phones. Apple says, "So, what?", as long as some folks make them a profit. If Android dominates smart phones, Apple will not care for the same reason. Why do some folks pay exorbitant prices for a Harley Davidson when compared to a rice burner?
And no, I'm not an Apple FanBoy, but I live with an Apple FanGrrrl. I only bought her an iPhone when I could get it re-imported, unlocked. And the UK uses some crazy-ass plugs on their electrical devices.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, so let's look at the numbers. These charts show historical sales of iDevices. One shows iPod sales being replaced by higher-margin iPhone and iPad sales. And they're increasing, not decreasing. I think iPhone sales are more important as we have device convergence. If you truly want to look at just iPod sales another graph is there too. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/23/the-ipods-rise-and-fall/
Android is documented
Ha ha good one.
I thought Woz and Jobs got along pretty well even now, but I can't imagine this sort of thing making their relationship any better.
Every once in awhile you can find comments from Woz about what its like having a friendship with Jobs. Or Woz's opinions on Apple products. Woz tends to put forward a generally positive view of most things he comments on - to include both Jobs and Apple. But he has said that Jobs can be difficult for people to get along with at times. And he's spoken against the expected Apple line in the past. And its not the first time he's made comments that could be perceived as negative towards the iPhone.
In the end, when you talk to Jobs, you're talking to Apple. When you talk to Woz, you're not talking to Apple. You're talking to a guy who likes technology and practical jokes. A guy who's an Apple insider that isn't in the inner circle of Apple. You're talking to someone who's linked deeply to Silicon Valley and Apple culture. And you're talking to a hacker who's hacks were part of a revolution. But you're not talking to Apple.
Heads up, all.
Woz was misquoted.
.
Trolling is a art,