Apple's objective isn't to become the largest. Apple does not see this as a winner-take-all platform war. Apple's core values are all about it's ability to change things, it's ability to think different, it's ability to move forward without obstacles.
Apple wants to make, and sell, the best and most beautiful devices they can imagine. For that they don't need to "own the market", their platform doesn't even need to "win". Whenever Apple thought that their platform was limiting their ability to innovate they have dumped the platform and build a better one. That's the kind of business Apple is.
Apple doesn't compete with Nokia for the €40 phone market, Nokia does a great job already in that market. Apple is competing in the high-end smart phone market and only in this small market does it want to "win" in any sense.
Apple sometimes finds itself in a situation where there is not competition, that's fine too. Just don't expect Apple to make something cheap for the lower-end of the market. More often then not, someone else will fill that niche soon enough.
Apple only needs two things: (one) An open market of multiple competing platforms with shared open standards and protocols so that devices can work together. (two) Something special to differentiate itself by, often a level of quality and total integration, the realization of a coherent idea.
About the only thing Apple can't accept is a market where someone else controls an essential part of the market, may it be either some piece of hardware, or software, a protocol, or even the structure of the market itself.
To have someone else control the market would mean that someone else controls the speed of change. It would severely limit Apple's ability to innovate. And it's ability to innovate is the heart and soul of Apple.
I think the thing you are missing is not that Apple are happy or contented with low market share/high profit margins (which they are), but usually that they achieve that by succeeding in customer satisfaction.
In the US (not everywhere), they aren't hitting that note because they continue to be weighed down by AT&T. All those awesome features don't mean anything if you spend all your time bitching to your friends about dropped calls (which is all I hear from my non-techie friends here).
AT&T were shamed at the last WWDC over tethering and such, and they've been shamed again over new price plans which aren't necessarily consumer friendly, over continued awful service, over what Jobs himself said was "things have to get worse to get better... which means things will get really great soon." It used to be that Jobs would cancel a supplier to spite anyone who dared accidentally unveil a release before Apple did, and now it's a company that will let its brand get tarnished by having consumers kicked in the balls for five years straight.
Apple's exclusivity deal is anything but friendly to their customer base, and that is the key difference between the Apple of old and the Apple of new. People are upset not because the iPhone isn't great, but because Apple are acting like pricks, like they have done with Google and Google Voice, like they have with other App Store rejections (I find the "replicating iPhone features" particularly rich in comparison with all the spam apps on the App Store), like they have done about saying nothing to the consumer about why AT&T is sucking and why Apple appear to be doing nothing about it.
The Apple of old wouldn't have hamstrung their customers the same way Apple is now doing. Putting the user first was their mission. In the US, on the iPhone (less so the iPad), that is starkly not the case.
You are correct, I think. I'm not in the USA, I'm in europe? AT&T wows isn't an issue over here, though there are problems here as well, take T-mobile in the Netherlands.
I do think however that if Apple thought that there was a viable superior alternative then they would have taken it, which they have done in a few countries, I believe? Any operator would have difficulty supporting the iPhone, that's the whole point: The iPhone changes the game.
Maybe more competition would have been better? But then again, it might not. Data infrastructure is weird: The network is most valuable if it's cheap and stupid, all the value is added at its edges. http://www.worldofends.com/ This however means, as Davis Isenberg and others already understood many years ago, that the best network is the worst to make profitable. I would not want to be AT&T.
Steve Jobs' comments at D8 underly your take. Apple wants to create greatness and do wonderful things. They are consistent at it. As a Mac user and iPhone and iPad user, I am glad they do. Their innovation pushes the industry.
What I am seeing from Android is not just high market penetration, but also quality. They are doing a good enough job to have me switch. That they offered great quality, in addition to working with a top-notch voice carrier made it easier.
I am rooting for iPhone and Android. I think that's still allowed. :)
> Apple only needs two things: (one) An open market of multiple competing platforms with shared open standards and protocols so that devices can work together.
Share open standards? They won't even accept any other language for apps other than Objective-C? They have deliberately closed down any possibility for developers to be able to reuse code inside and outside of their platform. If they were really interested in an open market they'd be embracing efforts to port software to and from their OS.
I wrote: "shared open standards ... so that devices can work together". Context matters.
The whole concept of a multi-platform framework is anti-innovation, anti-diversity: Its only purpose is to generalize, to make make everything uniform and the same by removing everything special, removing that which differentiates, that which makes the difference. It's about "think alike", "Move together".
Sharing code is probably the most important way that devices can work together.
> The whole concept of a multi-platform framework is anti-innovation, anti-diversity
Explain to me please how 'shared open standards' are fundamentally different to 'multi-platform frameworks'? Isn't the purpose of both to 'generalize, to make make everything uniform and the same'. Of course there are disadvantages is standardising on anything. HTML5 and Javascript certainly have limitations but in a great many cases the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
> It's about "think alike", "Move together".
Actually that's Apple. Other platforms allow you to choose and open standards/platforms merely encourage you to cooperate but Apple actively prohibits choice.
How does this stuff get to the top of list? It's 700+ words that ignores basically anything shown today by Apple and instead says only "AT&T sucks!"
More generally, flamebait articles that paint this as the great Android vs Apple war are maddening. They are pieces of software, not wrestlers. One does not have to fail for the other to succeed.
This happens on practically all social networks. Had I been told in advance that it would be submitted for a Hacker News crowd, I would have made some changes. :)
As I said elsewhere, I've talked a lot about Android and iPhone lately already, so I didn't think I needed to recap that here. Sorry if it seemed shallow.
Quick summary echoed elsewhere: What I saw today was iPhone achieving parity with some of Android's features. What I also see is Android having more handsets, more manufacturers and carriers, and eventually more users.
What I saw today was iPhone achieving parity with some of Android's features.
Assuming you're the author of the article, you're clearly not paying attention. Show me the android phone that has a 326 dpi screen, a 9mm case, an outrageously good battery life, or the attention to detail that a design-driven company like Apple puts into its products. If you're not willing to admit these things, you're not having an honest discussion.
(And this doesn't even get to the annoying Android v Apple deathmatch fallacy)
I am the author and paying attention. I don't intend to quibble over the specs. The ones you mention are 100% correct. This is an honest discussion.
Trying to pick a winner on specs in a battle that is not zero-sum is a fool's errand, so I won't waste your time or mine with that. I am simply glad we can talk about Android or iPhone instead of Microsoft or Symbian. :)
> the attention to detail that a design-driven company like Apple puts into its products
Please don't add in something that is so subjective into the discussion. You list off some solid items, and then dive into the kind of statement that causes flamewars.
By that statement, I feel like you are projecting the idea that you feel that no product that doesn't come off of an Apple assembly line will ever be a product worth spending time on.
Where are you getting "outrageously good battery life" from. The number I've seen from Apple is 40% improvement. 40% better than barely usable is hardly "outrageously good".
imo the "Code for Android first, and iPhone/iPad second" suggestion to "Apple developers" has very little merit for most Apple developers
For developers, it will make more sense to distinguish between ideology/opinions of bloggers and cold market realities.
For starters, revenue returns of Android apps are generally a small fraction of revenue returns for identical iPhone apps in spite of the fact that iPhone owners have a lot more apps to choose from.
For another, the Android fragmentation problem makes life even more difficult for developers. As an example, when Twitter released their official Android Twitter app, only 27.3% of Android owners could even consider downloading it. The app wouldn't run on 82.7 of devices because of the fragmentation problem.
Now it does make sense for some apps to be released only on Android.
For instance, if you think that your app may be rejected by Apple, it will make more sense to just create an Android app.
If you're not comfortable with Objective-C, it makes sense to go with Android because Android apps are a lot easier to develop.
Btw If first-mover advantage is really the goal, Windows Phone 7 will be a much better option. However, many Android enthusiasts don't like Microsoft. So I suspect that they won't concede this as a great reason for Android developers to do Windows Phone 7 development first and the do Android second :)
> As an example, when Twitter released their official Android Twitter app, only 27.3% of Android owners could even consider downloading it. The app wouldn't run on 82.7 of devices because of the fragmentation problem.
Hopefully Twitter will get motivated enough to support Android 110%!
Hopefully Google and the Android kit makers will get motivated enough to standardize Android a bit more, enough to at least provide platform consistency across brand implementations.
Also, hopefully they do it in collaboration with the hardware manufacturers, instead of in spite of them.
I doubt it will happen. One of Android's big selling points for phone manufacturers was that they could use Android as a free and solid base to add their own unique additions to. There really is little interest from them to make Android phones generic and interchangeable. If the platforms are too consistent then there is no reason people won't replace their Samsung Android phone with an HTC Android phone next time they upgrade, and Samsung certainly doesn't want that.
All true, but it's also true that it's ultimately in all their best interests to build a strong app ecosystem for the platform as a necessary but not sufficient requisite for competing with Apple.
The individual hardware makers may not think that way, but Google certainly should be, and is in a position to frame that problem and take the lead in solving it.
Additionally, handset makers have a contrary interest to keeping things updated. They literally make money when you decide you have to buy a new phone because your old one can't run the newest apps.
The problem isn't platform consistency. From an app developer (or app purchaser I suppose) perspective there's a great deal of consistency between any Android phones running the same version of the Android OS. The problem is how many phones are not only running older versions of the Android OS, but even worse how many manufacturers are currently shipping phones running older versions of the OS.
More likely, they'll wait until you all upgrade to 2.1 or 2.2.
Planned obsolescence is baked into the android ecosystem. Plan on buying a new andoid phone every 18 months to get all the new apps if you want to stay with the platform, it's all google is supporting (the newest stuff).
Sometimes ideologies and opinions are all we poor bloggers can bring to the table. :)
Yes, the revenue realities of today are true today. I am hoping that Google can work on the fragmentation issue and get that solved very soon, or at least made much more clear. Second, I think the Chrome Web Store will be a major help toward promoting the discovery and purchase of Android applications.
I know first-mover advantage has some weaknesses, but what I see is a growing user base with some needs. Where needs can be met, there is money to be made.
You make it sound like Twitter won't work on some Android phones because of hardware differences, etc. Which is completely not true.
The Twitter app will work on any Android phone running the current version of Android (2.1) and above. It won't work on older versions of the OS. That's not so complicated or unusual is it?
> If you're not comfortable with Objective-C, it makes sense to go with Android because Android apps are a lot easier to develop.
I disagree here. Unless you're a java developer, objective C apps are a lot easier to develop. If you're not, the iPhone tools blow away the Android ones. It's only third party toolkits like Air for Android (which is quite sexy, and about to be publicly available soon), etc, which makes android easier. Android development is possible, sure, but it's not easier, especially when you look at all the screen resolutions, OS versions, etc.
What made the twitter app work on only 27% of phones? I Doubt is the display resolution or the buttons configuration. Must be simply the OS version. In that case, it's quite a universal problem, one that apple is going to have too now that people have to deal with two OS versions and at least 4 devices (iphone 3g, iphone 4g, ipad, itouch).
A wise developer would just code something that would work on any version above 1.6
If I were making mobile apps, I'd probably make an iphone version and an android version.
I think it's great that Apple puts so much effort into usability and aesthetics. They put a lot of polish onto their devices and apps that put almost everyone else to shame.
It's true that the iPhone was a game changer. It's not surprising to see other companies stepping up to the challenge.
As an Android user (myTouch, 128MB RAM sucks), I often wish for the polish of the iPhone and for access to some much better apps, but in the end I can do things that the iPhone could never do.
I can tether via USB or WiFi, install apps from websites without using the Market and use free turn-by-turn navigation all while while taking a phone call. With Android I feel like I have freedom to do what I want with my pocket-sided computer without being treated like a baby and told what I can and cannot do with my own personal computing device. I have the freedom to choose phones with keyboards or without, with more RAM or less, from any carrier that I want. For me, that freedom is worth a lot.
I think the iPhone 4 is a great device from what I can see and certainly outshines most Android phones, but not by as much as the iPhone outshined BlackBerry at the time. If Google can take time for the next OS to work on the polish, I think they have a chance to really be a solid competitor. Heck, the Droid outsold the iPhone 3G in the first 30 days of sales. That says something.
> Always been available on the iPhone, you can do whatever you want while taking a call. With iOS 4, users will be able to do even more.
"Taking a call" is an example, an placeholder for X. You can say "use free turn-by-turn navigation all while chatting through Talk" or "use free turn-by-turn navigation all while tracking my progress using My Tracks" or "use free turn-by-turn navigation all while staring at Google Sky". The X is anything, not just specific vendor supplied apps (or in OS4, vendor approved activities).
> "Taking a call" is an example, an placeholder for X.
Then it's a stupid example, because it's not a placeholder. It's a very specific action and one important for a phone. Important enough that it's always been possible to take a call while doing something else on an iphone.
> Those were just some examples. My biggest point was the freedom of phone hardware and carrier.
I'm happy to report my iphone is entirely free from carriers control.
> Also, from everything I've read, AT&T has never supported tethering
I'm not in the US and not on AT&T, so in my world I have tethering, Android handsets are 6+ months later and most countries can't even buy apps on the Android market, let alone make them.
> Google Maps doesn't have Navigation on the iPhone.
> I'm happy to report my iphone is entirely free from carriers control.
Then you are mistaken. All settings under "carrier profile" (for example, enable tethering is there) cannot be set by you, the owner. They can be only imported using settings file signed by the carrier.
> Erm... yeah? It's a google soft...
If you were paying attention, exclusive features for own products is Apple tactics, not Googles. Actually, there were people asking why Google bothers with Maps and Voice for iPhone (i.e. why it is helping iPhone at expense of Android). If you know the answer why, you already know why Google doesn't play platform favorites.
> If you were paying attention, exclusive features for own products is Apple tactics, not Googles.
Yet Navigation is s a piece of software by google for google's platform.
> Actually, there were people asking why Google bothers with Maps and Voice for iPhone (i.e. why it is helping iPhone at expense of Android).
You seem unaware that Maps for iPhone is written entirely by Apple using Google's public APIs. As for voice, it's obviously because getting more people to use Voice plays to Google's advantage.
> If you know the answer why, you already know why Google doesn't play platform favorites.
because their platform (services) stand on top of other platforms.
I'd like to see an Android phone with the materials and build quality of the iPhone 4.
They're at a point now where the electronics are powerful enough (for the time being). Additionally with the hiring of the Palm UX team the 2.3+ user experience is sure to receive some much needed polish.
Now can someone build a phone with the materials and production refinement shown in the iPhone which is a BMW to the Android's Honda.
You fell for the marketing. Apple shows all these amazing robots and processes assembling the iPhone. What do you think the competition uses, do they carve their phones out of stones with toothpicks? They have advanced production tools, too.
The N1 is a really nice phone - I prefer it to the iPhone 3G. The phone makers will continue to better each other, from keynote to keynote. Now Apple has the lead again (in some aspects), in a couple of months, there will be a cooler Android device, and so on.
Notice how a lot of the Apple marketing dwells on the production processes, which are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the phone's body was hand carved by dwarves from middle earth out of Mithril, self-assembled by nano robots or cut out of aluminium in a single piece. What matters is that the end result works and looks nice.
Because Apple displays the processes to signal the build quality. And some build processes that enable them to use special materials - which doesn't imply that the materials are superior.
It's well known that Apple's laptop LCDs are average at best. I can only assume their PCBs are produced on the same equipment their foxconn et all use for their other customers.
Before my current MBP I had a T series ThinkPad - arguably one of the best built laptops. Awesome machine, loved it. There is no comparison in materials or build quality though.
Right now I'm using a borrowed iPhone 2G. Before that a high-end Symbian Nokia. The Nokia worked far better as a "phone". The fit-and-finish of the iPhone is far above.
Not saying the iPhone is ugly. However, you are comparing old non-Apple hardware to new Apple hardware. Technology progresses fast, so after one year, the next generation of phones tends to be much better than the ones before.
Not sure about notebooks - theoretically there should be nice ones, but a lot of vendors seem to screw it up completely.
I recently got the Canadian version of the myTouch (aka HTC Magic, double the RAM) from a G1 and installed a 2.1 ROM and I was very impressed with how well it all worked. I used to find myself torn between the iPhone and Android, but myTouch with the new OS is very smooth.
The multi-tasking is excellent- I was reading a book in FBReader last week and when I opened it yesterday it opened from RAM. With the Dolphin Browser, background tabs actually stay loaded in the background, and sites with auto-refresh actually keep content refreshed. For me, the browsing experience with Dolphin and the multi tasking are hard to beat. Also, the open market has some great advantages (along with disadvantages such as crappy apps), for e.g. MortPlayer (which was a great mp3/audiobook player for windows mobile) was recently released for Android without any fear of replicating functionality.
Like a lot of others, I'm glad for the iPhone vs Android war. It gives me lots of great, feature-rich phones to choose from, so why pick a side?
I think Apple does a fantastic job on nearly all fronts. There are many aspects to the iPhone which the Android should get. I am a hardcore Mac user. I just expect that we are at a tipping point for the market, and that the new iPhone didn't get enough done today to change that momentum.
There's a massive market of people out there whose iPhones will never talk to AT&T ; the rest of the world. I think drilling down on the US carrier is a bit shortsighted in a proper review.
There are many sites that cover gadgets and their global hit. What I was doing here was talking about my own personal experience, which I believe is fair. Not everyone shares the same experience, and there are many outlets to share those viewpoints. But here in the US, AT&T is a major problem, and it has been such a bad problem, it has contributed greatly to my looking for an alternative.
I'd rather have speed and battery life than tethering. If "speed and battery life measures are subjective" is all you have to say, that sounds like intentional ignorance.
I think Android is going to have more handsets, manufacturers, carriers, and eventually users. Their products are going to continually improve. The recent past has shown momentum on the innovation side that is lapping iPhone, I believe. I don't think iPhone is going to open up at quite a rate.
Everyone seems to think that Android will eventually dominate the market because "the products are going to continually improve". Guess what, so is iPhone. Apple have made it clear that this is their primary business. They're in it to win it. This is not Google's primary business--it is a loss leader to support that business. I think it's far from inevitable that Android will win out (pettiness of the Apple vs. Google battle aside).
I look forward to iPhone getting better. I understand your viewpoints as well. I hope the original article did not sound petty. That was not the intent.
I would call it shortening. I've talked about Android a lot lately in previous posts, and after a time, it seems redundant. Speed is subjective, and I have seen comments regarding battery life that are all over the map. In my experience, the real-world battery life of EVO is about the same as iPhone 3G.
Based on some forums I read I think my experience might be atypical, but putting FroYo on my Moto Droid actually increased its battery life by at least 50%.
How knee-deep in a silly Android vs iPhone fanboy war do you have to be to write a long post addressing the supposed presumption that iPhone 4 was going to slow Android down? What sensible person is even constructing thoughts along these lines?
Many kinds of critiques, positive and negative, of both platforms are welcome. But this sort of fanboy service horse race punditry is not.
At this stage, the smartphone market is not a zero sum game. Nobody has to slow anybody down. Stop polarizing this space.
I agree the smartphone market is not a zero sum game, not any more than social networks, etc. I am trying to avoid a war, but explain what I am seeing. To be honest, I am rooting for both.
What I saw today was iPhone achieving parity with some of Android's features. What I also see is Android having more handsets, more manufacturers and carriers, and eventually more users. I think it is fair to say that the new iPhone was nice, but that it wasn't good enough to slow that momentum.
If it came off as fanboy, I apologize. Folks get deeply entrenched, so there's no way to make everyone happy.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I've noticed that the Hacker News trolls really come out of the woodwork on Apple related submissions: in terms of the submission, senseless upvoting/downvoting and gradeschool level utterances. I suppose the general quality of the thoughtful submission/discussion on HN has to be offset by something.
I don't even see the option to downvote. Maybe I have to be more of a vet to get that privilege. I appreciate all discussion here, especially that which challenges my assumptions.
I think it's important not to forget the iPod effect... ie. people saw other folk with a shiny new iPod, coveted it, then bought one without seriously considering the many other equally-capable alternatives (although arguably the iPod was always technically the best available).
The iPhone was originally so ahead of the competition (well, so was the iPod I guess) that its features were the 'wow' factor. It was a sleek, well designed object but I think its functionality overshadowed its beauty. Now that other phones have similar features, the time is right for Apple to revamp the design for aesthetic/form-factor reasons. Think about it: lots of people on the subway with these gorgeous, scratch-proof, slightly retro-looking, ultra-crisp smartphones shimmering beneath layers of glass on both sides, vs. a whole motley crew of less beautiful Android models rarely seen together. Which phone will people want?
Also: they compared the new glass to sapphire crystal, which in my experience NEVER gets scratches (its on my wrist watch cover). Does anyone know enough about the hardness of this material Apple are using to assert how scratch-resistant they'll really be?
To summarize: AT&T sucks. Well, the good news is that a majority of iPhone users are not using AT&T.
Anyway, if I were to develop mobile apps instead of web apps, I would still go with iPhone first : much less splintering. But maybe I'm overestimating this issue ?
Apple is focusing on the things they think are most important for their customers. Wireless tethering via SmartPhone is a new feature for people so the demand is pretty low right now. It's not clear that it's the ideal way to deliver tethering due to the battery overhead. If you start with 5-6 hours of continuos 3G usage adding wireless tethering is going to bring you down to the <4 hour mark. That badly breaks the sunrise-to-sunset usage most people demand. I think we'll continue to see standalone mifi style devices with their own battery be a preferred solution.
It's not like they can sell a Verizon iPhone without CDMA right after Verizon launches a 4G network. Without backwards compatibility there would be no coverage, it would be worse than AT&T.
Things like "making phone calls" and "sending text messages" is nearly impossible in the Austin area.
AT&T tells me its the phone. I go to New York City, it works fine. I guess they actually have a good network there. Go figure.
Apple tells me its the network, and I actually believe them. AT&T - if you are reading this - I'm not going to give you my money after you've hiked up your early cancellation fees, but you bet your ass me and everyone in my family will be on a different carrier in less than 2 years.
You guys must forget that families listen to their "computer guy" family members. Losing votes like mine is more akin to losing 10. Remember that.
Do android phones have multi-touch, or do apple patents prevent this?
I'm working on UI trees that can be rearranged with the mouse. It works OK, though a little awkward. I think with a touch screen, it would be incredibly intutive - like rearranging physical blocks.
I've only used Windows Mobile on Symbol handheld scanners, and I have to say it's the worst OS EVER. It's a nightmare trying to get that thing configured properly for network connections since it still thinks that Dial-Up with a modem is a first class citizen.
Apple's objective isn't to become the largest. Apple does not see this as a winner-take-all platform war. Apple's core values are all about it's ability to change things, it's ability to think different, it's ability to move forward without obstacles.
Apple wants to make, and sell, the best and most beautiful devices they can imagine. For that they don't need to "own the market", their platform doesn't even need to "win". Whenever Apple thought that their platform was limiting their ability to innovate they have dumped the platform and build a better one. That's the kind of business Apple is.
Apple doesn't compete with Nokia for the €40 phone market, Nokia does a great job already in that market. Apple is competing in the high-end smart phone market and only in this small market does it want to "win" in any sense.
Apple sometimes finds itself in a situation where there is not competition, that's fine too. Just don't expect Apple to make something cheap for the lower-end of the market. More often then not, someone else will fill that niche soon enough.
Apple only needs two things: (one) An open market of multiple competing platforms with shared open standards and protocols so that devices can work together. (two) Something special to differentiate itself by, often a level of quality and total integration, the realization of a coherent idea.
About the only thing Apple can't accept is a market where someone else controls an essential part of the market, may it be either some piece of hardware, or software, a protocol, or even the structure of the market itself.
To have someone else control the market would mean that someone else controls the speed of change. It would severely limit Apple's ability to innovate. And it's ability to innovate is the heart and soul of Apple.