Counter argument: Why Android won't worry RIM and Apple

Andrew Orlowski makes some compelling points in his piece "Why Android won't worry RIM and Apple". However, there are assumptions I would like to second-guess. The first assumption is that mobile is different. When he compares the smartphone market to the early PC market, he says it's "too diverse" to see a replay.

Mobile, in my opinion, is not different. I believe the reason behind thinking that mobile is too diverse is because it's more modern. More modern means more complex. More complex means more diverse, by definition. This isn't case-specific. This is a trend that will never end, and we better get used to it, because technology advances at an exponential rate. Nevertheless the question remains, will more diversity make a difference in this marketshare war as compared to the last one? Why should it? I see absolutely no reason it will. As a matter of fact, Andrew makes a great point on why it will be the same.

Android manufacturers play on low margins. Competition is heating up like never before in high-end mobile. Until today, smartphones were a niche market mostly for enterprise. The iPhone made a great entrance for the next generation of mobile into the mainstream, just as the GUI did to desktops in the last round. But the name of the game here in the big leagues, as I have said before, is scalability. Once a market matures and becomes a commodity, such as the PC, band-aids, or any other commodity you can think of, all manufacturers have figured it out, and all that's left is to who can do it most efficiently. HP is selling boatloads of Windows machines en masse, not because they're the most prestigious (HP hardware is the least reliable out there), but because it's compatible with the scalable OS that Windows is, and they make them cheap, i.e. low margins. Because if they tried selling fancy, expensive hardware, they won't sell.

That leads to the second assumption that Andrew makes: it needs to stand out. "...encourage the development and marketing of distinctive products, must-have phones that people talk about in the pub." Wrong. New technology needs to stand out. Matured technology needs to scale. Okay, we got it. Touchscreens are the new paradigm. Apps are too good for Webapps to penetrate (as of yet). Mobile connectivity is where services flourish. We all get it. Now let's get it mass produced and cheap so we can all sit in the pub with these awesome phones instead of just drool thinking of them. HP is not making anything must-have. Yet they sell more than anyone else. And guess what? None of HP's competitors are trying to find something "distinctive" to out-do HP or to steal the spotlight. Everyone knows it's a game of low margins, who can make them as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Is the netbook craze of a few years ago at all surprising?

Which leads once again to my point I've made in past posts. PC's are getting cheaper and stronger at the same time. In order to scale, you need to address all ends of the market, the grandma who want's to send email for cheap, and the hardcore gamer who want's to run the latest FPS for as much as his money can get him. Of course, there are always gamers who are sitting in a pub talking about the next generation of Nvidia/AMD graphics, but that's so insignificant in the huge world of PC's, that it's almost irrelevant in the big picture.

The last assumption is not as obvious, but it's there. The argument that Blackberry services are irreplaceable for enterprise and have even caught wind with the mainstream consumer. And the argument that Apple's user experience will justify the platform, and Google cannot compete in that department. The first argument is a little weird, as if technologies cannot be replaced. Why would it be replaced, you ask? Because Android (and iOS) is growing and BB is diminishing. The numbers and surveys are out, just google them.

The second argument here is a little more subtle. The argument that Apple will always lead in user experience is odd to me, because it's not considering that Google can also create a good user experience, or dare I say, a better one. Why do people assume that? I own a Nexus One with the latest software, and I can tell you, it's snappy, sharp, and polished. The next update is rumored to have quite an emphasis on polish and media, some of the bigger criticisms of Android. But I can't base my arguments on rumors, which is why I will present my final point.

Apple's user experience is obvious to all; the artists know how to create an appealing interface and experience. No doubt. But there's something we haven't been paying nearly enough attention to. Have you ever used Google Search? You know, the most widely used service the internet has ever seen? If you just read a little about what goes on behind Google Search, you'll realize that engineers can make amazing user experiences. If you read about the studies they run without us even realizing, you'll appreciate the power of engineering and crowd-sourcing. And you'll appreciate the Google user experience.

Crowd-sourcing is a concept we haven't all accepted yet. Google Search (which relies on crowd-sourcing of the entire internet) and YouTube are just examples of the power and the product of crowd-sourcing. BitTorrent is being fiercely rejected, but the technology is an amazing advancement in human history, and I'm surprised we are not embracing it in productive ways. People don't trust the cloud, because it's so impersonal, but that will pass. Eventually. Once we realize us humans are communicative creatures, and we do best when we immerse ourselves in and lubricate conversation, we'll understand that the cloud is the best place to communicate.

Google's strategy in general is one of algorithms harnessing crowd-sourcing in the cloud, where communication and information is abundant. I think Google is one of the only entities in the world that truly understands the previous paragraph. But that's not surprising, because Google is (along with Facebook), the only big player to have been born in the internet. Google's strategy and attitude is more modern, and plays better in our modern world. If that doesn't worry RIM and Apple, I don't know what will.

I can also discuss the power of services, of which Google leads both RIM and Apple by a margin unfathomable, but then I can rant for ages. In the meantime, I believe I have made clear what assumptions I believe are wrong that people make when discussing the heated topic of the new marketshare wars, where we all wonder if there will be a replay of the previous one or not.

The Battle of Philosophies - Apple's Underdog Tendency

    Apple is one of those companies (actually, the only one that I know) that is able to yield the absolute maximum results from the potential in products and services. It's a large part of what I believe is the reason for Apple's great success. Unfortunately for Apple, I'm not here only to sing their praises, rather I'm here as a doomsayer as well.

    Apple's philosophy, or Steve Jobs' philosophy, is quite the opposite of their traditional arch-nemesis, Microsoft. Back in the early days, way before I could have remembered, Microsoft won the PC. While everyone was trying to compete with IBM and their 'killer software', Microsoft was thinking differently. They came up with a philosophy of interchangeability, of synergy, where any one element of computing can be replaced and is compatible with any other element of computing. While Apple, the underdog at the time, thought it was competing with IBM's hardware-software package, Microsoft came along and changed the rules of the game - they split the hardware and software thus creating a niche (which actually became quite large) where they could create only the operating system in IBM's package, and allow others to continue to do as they wish with the rest (both hardware and software). Microsoft wishes to partner with everyone they can in both hardware and software - it's their business model, their philosophy, it's what makes them successful. They don't compete with anyone, they only took one slice of the pie and allowed everyone else to take the other slices as they wish, and it's in their interest for as many people as possible to be involved with the rest of the pie.

    The desktop became Microsoft's desktop, and the two biggest problems that Microsoft's desktop faces are driver conflicts and security. While Microsoft now grasps a good 9 out of 10 personal computers in the world, it faces the vast majority of malware attacks, which is becoming an increasingly worrying problem. And when virtually all components are developed to work with Windows, you cannot avoid running into conflicts between the countless number of drivers trying to access the same low-level resources on the computer. By splitting the pie into slices, everyone gets a piece, but this idea generated problems of it's own.

    Meanwhile Apple stuck to the old model, where hardware and software come bundled together, until eventually Apple was strong where Microsoft was weak and vica versa. Apple's desktop does not suffer from Microsoft's problems, because Apple's desktop is a carefully tailored package that comes mostly under Apple's scrutiny, under Apple's supervision. Steve Jobs sees this as part of the experience that he ensures his customers, almost like saying, "Don't worry about it, I will personally make sure that your computer and everything in it works properly." Apple have created a holistic desktop, one that all is part of Jobs' grand vision of how computing should work. When Steve Jobs personally cares for the user experience on the desktop, you don't have driver and compatibility issues - it either works on Jobs' desktop, or not. This gives the user a pleasant, and I dare say, even a magnificent experience.

    Let me segway for a moment, to the Android open source mobile operating system. This can be considered the extremity of Microsoft's philosophy - one that says that computing must be open, versatile, synergetic and interchangeable. The openness of the operating system gives everyone involved (and that's a lot of parties involved) extreme leverage in virtually everything. The operating system is only one slice of the pie, and the other slices can be taken or divided up in any way you wish. I need not bring evidence to the success path that Android is on, which is in my opinion due to this philosophy, the one that Microsoft had that won it the PC.

    Apple has a wonderful desktop experience. But, it's a minority. The fact that the entire package comes from one closed source is something that normally repels people. It only works when there's a small, select group of customers and end users, and a small select group of parties involved in development and build - it doesn't scale to the huge market. If Apple sold more than their %5 global, they would have more security and compatibility issues. One company cannot possibly offer such an invested and adorned experience for everyone, thus they ceded the closed walled garden desktop in face of the scalable and open environment desktop.

    But Steve Jobs' is a visionary and an optimist. He saw the future of mobile, and he understood that the only way to get people to the new and small form factor of the mobile is to make it a good, easy, simple experience with a low learning curve. The traditional Apple philosophy of the desktop experience was ported to the mobile, and so you had the walled garden of Apple around your phone. This philosophy was great for the introduction of the modern smartphone, but it's one that will cede to it's philosophical arch-nemesis of today. The walled garden is an "exclusive club" of Steve Jobs the caregiver, and the open environment is the one that will scale and take dominance.

I'm a [mobile] PC

    Google comes out with their first piece of commercial hardware, the Nexus One. As much as I would like to ramble about that, there was something specific I realized when I was watching the hands-on video of the Google smartphone.

Nokia - The Mobile Phone in Diapers

    Nokia dominates the mobile phone market for as long as time has been recorded. They are investing in a more future oriented OS, Maemo, but let's face it - Symbian is Nokia's OS. Not that Symbian or Maemo are any promising. The way I see it, the aforementioned platforms have the same future as do Nokia's devices - which isn't saying much.
    How can I talk down such a big company? Well, let's take a look at their strategy. I walk into my carrier's service center, where I find millions of new devices I don't recognize. That's funny... I was in here a week ago. I'm surprised there's enough manpower to replace all the models on the stands so fast, let alone develop, design, manufacture and ship all the new ones so quickly. But when you look at the specs sheets, you realize how they do it.
    By the time it takes Nokia to introduce something new in their phones, they'll have marketed a million "new" models. It's not that these models are new - they have the exact same specs as the one before - they're just in a different box. See, the average consumer doesn't follow on what's the latest technological advancement in the mobile industry, so if he can get a phone that works and looks alright, he's pleased with his "new" phone. After all, it's just a phone, right? You just need to make and receive calls.
    Nokia realizes this, and once a year they may add a new feature... Like... A camera. Or a WiFi receiver. And then sell them by the millions in a million different designs. People see that this years phones are better than those of three years ago (their last phone), which is good enough for the average consumer, apparently.

The Mobile Phone Begins to Walk

    Nokia's strategy is particularly effective in emerging markets. They figure the laypeople will buy phones en masse, because they look at the design, and not at the actual specs. But what about the real markets? What happens when all the emerging markets finally fill up with millions of cheap phones and have stopped emerging and have become emerged? Who are the players in this field, where the big boys play?
    I don't need to delve into the success of the iPhone, Blackberry's traditional corporate-oriented style, Palm's long and good experience in mobile devices, or other far eastern manufacturers that keep pushing can-do-all devices, the eastern pain in the western ass. But there is one thing that is quite obvious: Nokia is nowhere to be seen in this landscape. This is a serious issue, because the vast majority of the world is using their OS. How can today's high-end devices become tomorrow's mainstream if everyone is used to using an interface that has absolutely nothing to do with high-end devices?

A Crash Course for the Mobile OS - The Windows Experience

    While Nokia doesn't have to shove elbows with other mobile operating systems (and therefore pretty much neglect the operating system), the big boys are all tinkering their OS to be the best in the business. This is important, because choice in the operating system is arguably the most important factor when picking a device.
    When I looked at the Nexus One hands-on, I realized that it may be the first smartphone I can actually consider purchasing. This is a lot less to do with the hardware of the device and a lot more to do with the OS running on it. This is the realization that the operating system is the first thing to consider when picking a device, not the manufacturer, not the carrier, not the specs. Considering this, the operating system will pretty much dictate which devices will succeed, and which won't. At this point, everyone should go "Oh...", and understand that the winning OS is the mobile market, and that the mobile market is the dominating OS. In the same way Windows is the computer and the computer is Windows (at least, %90 of the time).
    Microsoft's Windows retains a massive market share, one that pretty much chokes everyone else out. How did this happen? (I'm expecting the mobile device industry to be very interested in this secret strategy of winning the market.) Microsoft realized that Windows must be completely independent of the hardware, and that it must run all software. That way, no matter what your hardware or software needs, you want Windows. When you buy a computer, the first thing you consider is what operating system you want (9 out of 10 either pick Windows or consider it a given), and only then decide how powerful the computer should be, how big a hard drive, how much memory, etc. Windows doesn't lock anyone into anything, except for the choice of applications you choose to do the things you need to do (and considering all the software that runs on the OS, the variety ensures you're not locked into any specific software either).
    All device manufacturers are pretty much relying on the fact that no OS will win the mobile market completely leaving room for everyone to play together like good little children (rather naive for my taste), or that their own OS will win (and there are a few who simply won't take sides and will make devices for all mobile operating systems). At this point, we can only speculate as to who will win the mobile OS wars, but I would like to make a guess. We said, as per Window's success, that there are two things an OS needs to be in order to succeed: the first is independence of hardware and the second is an extensive ecosystem of software. Just taking a quick look at the OS's at hand, it seems quite obvious to me who's the winner.
    Apple's iPhone OS has only one of the two: it has a huge and extremely impressive application ecosystem and developer community. But it only runs on a tiny portion of the hardware out there: two devices only (the iPod touch and the iPhone). Nokia's OS's (S60, Symbian and Maemo) has only one of the two: it has a huge variety of hardware on which it runs (%38 of the mobile market globally as of Q3 2009), but the software available and the developer community for their OS's is dwarfed by other software ecosystems. Palm's WebOS has almost neither: the hardware is limited to Palm's two devices (the Pre and the Pixi) and the software is also limited to the developer community, which similarly to Nokia is minute in comparison. RIM's BlackBerry OS also has neither: the hardware is limited to BlackBerry devices, and the software is--Well, I never heard of a BlackBerry developer community... Can you guess what's left? Android, by design, is supposed to support the largest range of devices, and is the easiest to develop software for (being open source and all). Android wins.

    Android, so it seems, is the most similar in this aspect to Microsoft Windows. I'm a PC, and I like Windows. I hope Android becomes the open source Windows of the mobile device and provides the great and proven Windows experience.

And now... Enter the Cloud.

Flash, HTML5, and the Internet

A brief history of Flash

Browser wars

1995, the internet.
    As the internet became popular amongst the general public, the HTML rendering browser became a battlefield between Microsoft and Netscape. It was an easy win for Microsoft and they didn't even have to fight for it, thanks to their 90% OS market share shipping with IE. With no competition left, the IE team decides to eat donuts all day for the next five years.

Plugin wars

    The internet is changing. And fast. I mean, fast. People want to start playing back music, watching video... Basically, doing real stuff on the internet. And since IE isn't a real browser, people start using plugins to do that stuff for them. And then you have codec issues, and plugins are unstable... It turns into a big mess.
Enter Flash. Adobe makes a plugin that not only plays back all audio and video, its' powerful .swf Flash format does a whole lot more for a richer experience.

The second browser wars

    Mozilla's Firefox picks up where Netscape left off with one of the largest open source developer armies in the world, and makes a real browser. The new browser wars have begun, and the appearance of Google's Chrome makes it all the clearer: IE is losing it's grip as did Netscape before it. HTML rendering is no longer a monopoly of IE and it's standard-breaking ways.

    Speaking of standards, the big guys making the real browsers, Mozilla, Google and Apple, are all trying to get this straight: IE, who took the whole browser market share, got lazy and we needed to start using messy fixes (a.k.a. plugins) that are actually just workarounds, to do rich stuff on the internet. We are in 2009, and the most important application that ever resided on the computer, the browser, can't play audio and video without installing a heavy, clunky plugin?!

Flash, HTML5, and the Internet

    Google's innovation, Apple's creativity, and Mozilla's power; fuze them together and you get HTML5. The proposal for the new standards of the internet, this time without IE slowing anyone down, allowing real browsers to make a richer experience - like playing video without installing a heavy, clunky plugin.
    At this point the HTML5 camp and the Flash camp start pulling out their knives, ready to cut off the other out of the internet. You may say, if HTML5 can play video then why do we need Flash? And if Flash is already there, why worry about new standards and trying to change the world?
    Well, they're both wrong. Even with HTML5, Flash does a lot more than just audio and video - you can make whole RIA's (you know, the ones that run all the Facebook games and stuff). Interactivity is key in making Flash invaluable to the web and for a generally richer experience.
    On the other hand, there is no reason to put everything in Flash. Thanks to IE and its laziness, we improvised solutions to do things on the web that the web browser can't do natively. But this improvisation leads to two key issues: advanced standards and the open spirit of the internet.

The foundation - not the workarounds

    If we kept working with plugins and layers of environments on top of layers of environments, the way IE saw it, the basis, the foundation won't improve at all. The foundation is defined by the standards, and as they become more advanced, without fixes and workarounds, more functionality will be native to the browser, which is exactly what HTML5 is doing. Google's Cromium OS isn't such a far fetched idea after all, eh? But Flash is not just a superfluous layer of the internet. Its nature is problematic.

The nature of Flash, the nature of the Internet

    The internet, by nature, is open. What do I mean? I mean that the internet is just a web for transferring data, it's the network in which all data passes, regardless of who's sending, who's receiving, and what's being sent. Isn't that a beautiful concept? It's free speech in its purist form. This means the the internet need only transfer content, and the consumer may choose with what to read or view it. Today, you can view a webpage with any choice of browser. You can take the same page someone else is reading and style it differently with a custom CSS sheet. The picture I'm looking at is the same picture, no matter what frame is being used.
    The point of Flash, supposedly, is to provide a universal experience no matter what that frame is. That's not surprising, seeing as it was born in the time when everything was a mess, and people were looking for an internet video player that would work no matter what codec or operating system you're using. Fair enough. But Flash is actually giving you the only frame it works with. That means that it's not open. It's like it's the only browser that will play the Flash format. So Flash also dictates the content and also the user end rendering.
    Why is this no good? Well, like I said, it's not very internet-friendly. Let me make an analogy. We live in a world with a healthy ecosystem (well... mostly), in which animals (including us humans) inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide and plants inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. We balance each other out, and that's how we all survive. The air is free and no one owns or controls it. And the trees grow naturally in this ecosystem. And then, along comes a businessman and invents special trees that exhale tasty oxygen, and plants them all over the world instead of the normal trees. We gladly start breathing apple-tasting air, and lemon-tasting air, because the air is always free, and we like tasty air. But very soon, we realize that the air we are breathing all comes from one businessman's trees. Does that scare you yet? Even if this is a very good-hearted and friendly businessman, I don't like the fact that he's controlling all the trees that make the air we breathe.
    How does this have anything to do with Flash? Adobe is the businessman, Flash is the trees, and the content of the internet is the air. So much of the internet is relying on Flash, it's like we practically cut down our real trees and invited the businessman to put his special tree in our backyard. I'm not going to go into detail of what is so bad about this, be it that the businessman will try to make money off of the air we're all breathing, or that he will screw the trees up and we all rely on him to fix the trees whenever we choke on bad air. There is nothing in the internet that is quite like our Flash situation. The internet is so decentralized and so open, and that's what allows for the great concept of pure free-speech. Flash is not open, it's proprietary. And somehow, it's controlling all of the rich internet.