[canistr]

I have long had a distrust for Google so I can understand the anti-Google sentiment. If we want a competitive battleground in the market, every player needs to be balanced. I was one of the earliest Android adopters but now I see that I must move on to one of the other underdogs (i.e. Nokia or HP).

[rtperson]

> every player needs to be balanced

Correction: at least two players need to be balanced. iPhone, to my mind, provides just such a balance. Trying to boost every single also-ran product into a position of strategic equity is a waste of time. Right now, RIM is the poster child for the Innovator's Dilemma, and there's little anyone including RIM can do about it.

[canistr]

You mention 'at least two players' but from your explanation, you seem satisfied with ONLY two players. I disagree. I'd rather have multiple competitive players than merely two.

[lusis]

I can't recall the name off hand and my googlefu is failing me but there's a theory that says a system that supports multiple political parties eventually evolves (or devolves) into two parties.

I think there's a business correlary as well.

Markets aren't designed to support more than one or two players. There's not enough market share in a given space for it. Eventually you'll have first, second and everyone else. The people in first and second may change but there's always a disproportionate market share between number 2 and the rest of the pack.

You might want multiple COMPETITIVE players but you will rarely see it. Eventually the minor market folks will quit because it makes no sense financially to continue in the space.

[kenjackson]

Markets aren't designed to support more than one or two players. There's not enough market share in a given space for it. Eventually you'll have first, second and everyone else.

What are you talking about? I've never heard that anywhere before?

How many car makers are there? Honda, Toyota, Ford. Right there is three, and they're all pretty darn big. And this ignores some pretty large folk like Chevy, GM, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes, and other household names.

How many PC computer makers? Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo. Four, and all pretty big.

How many casual shoe makers? Nike, Reebok, New Balance, Adidas, Sketchers.

Retail stores? Macys, Sears, JCPennys, Walmart, Costco, Target.

There are tons of industries where there are more than two large players. IMO, it seems pretty clear that there will be at least three major players for mobile:

1) iOS. Only Apple. 2) Android 3) Some other phone that is licensed to the same OEMs that make Android devices. They want diversity so that a single company, like Motorola, can't just become the de facto leader. It's likely Windows Phone. Longshot is WebOS.

[canistr]

That doesn't mean that the two largest parties remain the most powerful forever. That's what makes it a theory.

For instance, look at state of the Canadian Parliament. For the longest time, the Conservative and Liberal parties were the two largest parties generally swapping power every couple of years. Now we see the Liberals have severely dropped in the power with the rise of the NDP to become the Official Opposition and being the second most voted party in Parliament. Even the Conservatives, who the hold, only garnered 40% of Canadian votes.

Again, what you're saying is a theory and it isn't even always the case.

[rtperson]

I'd prefer this as well. The richest competitive ecosystem is always preferable. What I was addressing was the assertion that all players "needed" to be balanced. Necessity is not equivalent to preference. I'd prefer that all players be roughly equivalent, but in order to avoid a monopoly I'll settle for two major dominant competitors.

[canistr]

Perhaps 'balanced' was the wrong choice of words. Rather, I'd like to see the momentum shift periodically such that we increase the level of innovation from all players instead of the most powerful.