Google Android vs. iPhone: It’s 1984 All Over Again
Back in 1984, Apple was on top of the computing world with top-notch sexy hardware and it partnered with Microsoft for some top-notch [not so] sexy practical software. It was a winning combination for both Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft’s strategy in 1984 was hardware agnostic making its software available on any popular platform. Apple’s strategy in 1984 was holistic. We’ll call the period between 1984 and 2000, Round 1.
In Round 1, it turned out that Microsoft’s strategy was the clear-cut winner. By being hardware agnostic, hardware vendors competed with one-another to drive down the price of hardware much faster than anyone could have imagined. Clone prices fell so fast and so much lower than the price of a Macintosh that it simply became impractical to own a Mac. Software vendors also took note and quickly the non-Mac-PC became the standard. Apple nearly died.
2007 set off Round 2. This time around it’s in the cell phone business. Once again, Apple is on top of the Cell Phone game with top-notch sexy hardware and it has partnered with Google this time for some top-notch [not so] sexy practical software (think Google Maps, YouTube and other web-based Google Apps for the iPhone). Once again, it’s a winning partnership for both Apple and Google. And Once again, Google’s strategy is exactly the same to that of Microsoft in 1984: stay hardware agnostic. Apple’s strategy is also identical to its own strategy back in 1984: stay holistic. Round 2 has begun.
The similarities are eery. In 1984, while Microsoft was building the most popular application software on the Mac, it had begun a similar hardware-agnostic operating system (Windows) on its own. In 2007, while Google has some of the most popular application software on iPhone, it has begun a similar hardware agnostic Cell-Phone operating system (Android) on its own. Apple’s strategy has not changed a single bit. It refuses to license its operating system or any other technology while it continues to want more and more control over the entirety of the experience. The iPhone in 2007 has set off a brand new race much like the original Macintosh did in 1984. Interestingly, 24 years later, the strategies are still identical on both sides.
So will Round 2 end in the same way with Google’s Android prevailing due to exceptionally cheap phones that are sure to emerge using Android? Maybe not. There is one key difference between Round 1 & Round 2: Steve Jobs. Steve didn’t get to finish fighting the strategy that he helped establish for Apple in Round 1. He left Apple in 1985. So there’s no telling how things would have turned out. The fact that Apple lost round 1 may have taught everyone a lesson and it might falsely embolden Google to think Microsoft’s winning strategy was the better strategy. After all, Google’s chief, Eric Schmit, has been learning from (and losing to) Microsoft for 20+ years. Eric is now using Microsoft’s own strategy to successfully beat them. Google is the new Microsoft.
But this time around Steve is much smarter than he was in 1984. So smart in fact, that he’s resurrected Round 1 from the dead and may still pull off a win (the Mac is coming back). It’s possible that Steve & Apple’s holistic approach will still be the winning approach for Round 1, assuming you extend round 1 to at least 2015. But in Round 2 Apple’s chances are a lot better. Everybody is at the beginning of the race. There are no clear winners and just like in 1984, Apple has a major lead. It’ll be interesting to see what happens.
I’m curious to know your thoughts on:
- Who you think will win Round 2: will it be Google with its Android or Apple with its iPhone?
- Is Round 1 over in your view or will the Mac eventually beat out Windows-based PCs in market share?
- Is Microsoft even a player in Round 2? (I would never recommend a current Windows-Mobile phone to my worst enemy – so do they even stand a chance?)
Ship Software OnTime! 
OK, Hamid, you asked for it.
If you want to draw the PC fight to a prize-fight, you must — and I mean MUST — declare Microsoft the big winner in round 1. I’ll give them 1 (PC v Mac), 2 (SQL v Oracle) and 3 (IE v Netscape). Is it a knock out? Of course not. Has the fight been one? Nope… seems that a few new contenders have arisen and it’s now a cage match. (Extend round one to 2015? Puuhhhlleeezzzz!)
So, that was my answer to Q2. Q1 is too early to determine any winners. While I’m rooting for Android to make a big splash, you must admit that PC v Mac is not a fair analogy to the phone wars. In the PC/Mac wars, the players in the market were only the HW manufacturers. I remember the old Dell, Micron, and Zeos (that was my first PC) adverts that were constantly one-upping each other with greater HW and lower DIRECT-TO-THE-BUYER prices. Would that market have turned out the same if there was a tightly controlled distribution chain?
The big problem with US cellphones is not the HW or the SW. Sure, the iPhone has moved the SW conversation forward in a quantum-leap, but the service providers are sticking their nose in the way. Heck Hamid, I’ll let you make my argument for me: why don’t you own an iPhone? Answer: the service provider. In other words, it’s not //just// about the product. The universe of variables has to be considered in the phone debate, and it’s not easy to figure out.
Let’s look at it this way: would you want the best hardware on the worst service? Nope, me either. Would you want the worst hardware on the best service? Actually, given that the #1 job a phone should do is //work//, if those were my only two options, I might just take the better service/worse phone combo.
Ultimately, we in the US are always going to lose in the cell phone market. That is, until the unsavory practices that exist in the US change. The fact that I can’t buy an iPhone today and take it to my provider of choice is pure insanity.
Oh, and is Microsoft a player? Damn straight they are. They have more than a few billion (WITH A “B”) to throw at the market, if they so please. Do I think they’re in trouble? Yup, and I’m sure a few people in Redmond are well aware of their situation. Just like the “bad guy” in a horror flick, don’t count them out.
Hey i feel u r a fool. cause i own a N95 which is way better than iPhone. i really dont understand y do people like it. iPhone doesnt have 3G, radio, HSDPA and what not compare them at gsmarena.com
Matt, a few comments…first, I agree that the service provider complicates things for the cell business vs. the PC business. However, it’s just a matter of time before iPhones work on all service providers, don’t you think? And the 2nd point is that Microsoft is definitely NOT a player in this market. Not even close. They’ve been at it for 10 years with Windows Mobile with billions of dollars behind it, but as we all know, billions don’t mean jack unless you can produce great products and Microsoft can no longer produce great products. They are done. The only remaining players are Blackberry (if you had said blackberry, you’d have an argument), Nokia, iPhone and yet-to-be-introduced Android phones.
Just like there was Macs, Commodore Amiga, Atari ST and Windows in the late 80s. 4 real players, but it’s clear that it will be a 2-company race.
Praveen, I quote you: “I really don’t understand y do people like it [iPhone].” So if you’re the one who doesn’t understand why people like the iPhone, how does that make me the fool? If I were you, I would try to figure out why people like the iPhone so much.
I don’t agree that iPhones will be on all providers. I’d love that, but the US market is very much complicated by the service providers. Feel free to tell me “I told you so” in 2012, when the Apple/ATT exclusivity is over and Apple makes a deal with multiple carriers. Just look at the other deals Apple is making over seas. AFAIK, Italy is the *only* market in the *world* that offers the iPhone on more than one carrier, Vodafone and Telecom Italia.
As far as MS being “done,” they anticipate selling 20MM units of WM this year. That’s not chump change, my friend, and I dare say that you are writing them off far too soon.
Oh, and “Microsoft can no longer produce great products”?! Oh boy! If I could, I’d mod you down as a troll with that kind of a sweeping statement.
Matt, LOL. I love these arguments.
I think an exclusivity strategy is extremely smart for Apple. By starting this way, they get to demand all kinds of things from carriers (such as visual voice mail) and they can essentially write their own terms. What would Verizon be willing to do now to get Apple’s iPhone on its service? The answer: ANYTHING! So within 2-3 years, you’ll see all the carriers bending over backwards to accommodate Apple. The strategy will have paid off.
As for Microsoft…Lets look at some of their recent accomplishments:
1) Worked on a new OS for 5 years, released it (Vista) and users prefer the now 6-year-old version (XP). But guess what, when you buy Vista, you get XP for free – “what could be better?” the CEO says! Yippeeee.
2) They’ve been producing Windows Mobile for nearly 10 years (or is it longer already) and for 10 years I’ve been a user who has been driven to slam my phone at a wall from time to time…in the meantime some company that shouldn’t be alive anymore (Apple) comes out with their FIRST version of a phone that beats the pants off of Windows Mobile. 1 1/2 years since the announcement of iPhone, MS still doesn’t have a response. Nice going.
3) While MS continues to make bloatware with Outlook, Exchange and Office, the floodgates of smaller companies switching to Google’s Gmail and Docs have already opened. MS’s web offerings are practically invisible.
So what have they done right lately? I think they still put on better conferences…except they are no longer selling out.
Matt,
I actually have a couple of questions from your last statement to Matt. I also have some arguments of my own, but that’s another story.
1) You mention that today if you buy Windows Vista you get Windows XP for free? Where did you see that and could you point to any references for that? Especially any references from Microsoft?
Also, I think that Vista has mainly gotten a bad rap for two separate things. First, there is the difference in inteface and use. Last I recall, most people had complaints and issues with Windows XP as much as they do now with Vista. It took about 2 years and Windows XP SP1 before most poeple adopted it. In fact, I recall so many people wanting Windows 98 to stay around. Ultimately, people liked the change. Now with Vista, it has been a similar repeat. I think the real issue is not whether the OS works and is good (usability/productivity/stability/etc.) but whether people like change. I think tech users want change as we live and breath it, but your average user does not like to have to learn everything new every 3-5 years.
Second, the other issue with Vista was the increased hardware requirements. I think it was about time because so much of the computer/technology world is stuck in a backwards compatability rut. I’m not saying that we haven’t progressed, but even though a tire today is technologicaly superior to the wooden wheels of the past, we are still limiting ourselves to wheels instead of finding innovative technologies that might allow us to “hover” without wheels. I know the anology isn’t great, but when we create a new OS without backwards compatability we are asking every software company to re-develop their software for the new OS and the new platforms the OS might be on. I think they did great with Vista and in another year or two, once all has settled and/or the next OS comes out, people will want Vista back.
2) Windows Mobile sucks! I whole-heartedly agree with that. However, I would more likely buy a windows mobile phone than an iPhone because of the carrier issue. Personally, I’m not happy with the cell phone industry in the US because we can’t buy a phone and choose our provider. I hate to say it, but AT&T sucks and if anyone wants to argue that, fine. But you won’t convince me since the places I travel (for personal visits, not business) are rural and the only provider I have had that worked in those areas was and is Verizon Wireless. I don’t even like how they lock the phones down and they don’t have the coolest phones, but I agree with Matt that it’s not about the iPhone fad or any other “cool” hardware, but the service. I need a service provider that works, not a cell phone paper weight.
3) I don’t know if I’d call them bloatware. While I agree that the internet is a great medium and for now is the wave of the future for telecommunications and messaging, I still think client side software is far superior. For instance, if my power goes out (which happens frequently, another story) I can continue to use my laptop, but can’t access the internet. It’s great that I can get to my financial software to see if I have money to go out to eat at the next town that has power. Or to see my schedule in outlook for upcoming events without having to be connected all the time. As for office, that has pretty much become the business standard. So if we want something else, someone needs to change businesses, not try and change Microsoft.
Also, I think Microsoft has done great lately. I think Vista was a success as I mentioned earlier (just the public opinion sucks, but we are all entitled to our opinions). I also think their server software is great. Windows 2003 was a huge improvement, and Server 2008 is awesome. I can configure and use that far easier than any Linux based server. While I admit that I don’t have experience with Mac servers, I don’t see them being used as often as Microsoft Server products. Also, I love Visual Studio 2008 and .NET. I think they have done a great job improving upon their older products and enabled developers to improve their applications.
5) My last argument might sound like a long shot, but I think it is interesting that after Mac wanted to control their hardware all this time, as they still do, they have changed to an Intel based platform. They switched to the very open architecture that they never liked, yet they had to make a deal with Intel to develop a slight change in the processor so that the OS would only run on that processor. The real change is that they have switched to a more competative OS by making it more user friendly and by using an OS that has a better kernal/core considering it’s BSD/Unix base. In doing so they have gotten better memmory management and greater stability. However, the platform is the same. They are using PCIe and PCI-X, the same DDR SDRAM used by the PC world, and nVIdia and ATI based graphics cards. If you were to pull the guts out they are virtually identical to a PC. There really are no performance improvements on the hardware level. Only on the software/OS level. Besides, why would I want to pay more for a computer that looks well when I can buy a PC that works well. Now if Mac would sell OSX for PCs then I would jump on it. I don’t see the point in paying for Apple’s logo and name when it really isn’t better.
I think the same goes for the phones. I don’t follow the masses, even though the market does. I never liked the idea that phone would have a camera phone and more on it than just a phone.
Anyways, just my thoughts and raves.
Michael
sorry, my comments were not for Matt, but Hamid.
My bad. It’s been a long day.
One thing to mention, I am Really Happy about the Competition Happening around.
I think the End Users Need to Learn how to be “Evil” and Instead of “Fighting” an Infinite Number of “Religious Wars”, We should just keep asking for MORE
I want MORE… and i Neeeeeed all the Features I can Get (twisting a Song from Sisters of Mercy called More :P )
a Nice Read on this Subject would be :
“In Search of Stupidity, over 20 years of high-tech marketing disasters”
I Guess it’s Time for a New Chapter in this book ;) Isn’t It ?
This is an interesting topic, i have a few inputs to some of these.
Round 1: PCs control about 95% of the computer market…hmmm, and you think there is a chance? For one, Microsoft is backed up with billions on their side to spend if need be. Macs? I don’t think so. I have used Macs before, not impressed. The Mac is simply “too simple” if you ask me. Some of the stuff they release is pure bullcrap and makes NO sense whatsoever (MacBook Air). Round 1 in my opinion was over back when “Apple nearly died.” I don’t think they will make a comeback nor would I want them to to be honest. It would be a rather futile attempt considering the ratio of PCs to Macs in the world today. The way i see it, you can use a PC or you cant. Mac is an alternative option for those who need an “easier” computer. (Though from years of using PCs i wouldn’t call them “easier” i would call them “stupid”) But that’s my thoughts on Round 1.
Now we continue to reach more and more technological advances everyday. In my opinion, Apple was the first to bring in the age of Touch screen. Before the iPhone, there were touch screen phones, but they were mostly crap. Plus the internet functionality is simply amazing on a mobile device. A few bugs here and there (nothing that iPhone 3G cant fix) and there is the iPhone. Now we look into the Google Android. From the early specs and videos of the DEMO PHONE, you can see Google’s Android taking on very similar aspects of the iPhone. For instance, you can see the full internet on the early prototypes along with early adaptations of advanced maps and touch screen. I think Google is headed on the right track and i cannot wait to see what they come up with. I can also see they are trying to rush it a bit and I can only say “DON’T!” If it is to “compete” in the same league with the iPhone, it cannot be rushed. Goggle definitely has a bright future in my opinion. As for Windows Mobile, YES THEY STILL ARE A COMPETITOR! It doesn’t matter if it sucks or not, they are still putting out the OS on phones, so it is still in it. Also, to be honest, i think Windows Mobile 6.1 on the HTC Touch Diamond, though not as good as the iPhone 3G, is still a great looking and preforming phone with TONS of features. I mean if people like Thomas Edison didn’t try and fail, well we wouldn’t have some break-through devices in the world that we do today. You cannot blame Microsoft for trying, you fail to learn, whether it takes 10 years or 100 years.
The point is simple, Microsoft is trying to develop the perfect mobile device just like everyone. One day they could get it. For now we wait and see.
These are my opinions, argue if you want, I would be glad to listen and debate a little bit :)
I love the innovation of the iPhone. I think it has forced every manufacturer to re-examine their products. The really bad part is the jailed device. AT&T’s network, even the new iPhone is still painfully slow. I know this because I am the in charge of the PDA’s and cell’s at my company. We use both AT&T and Sprint for DR purposes.
If Apple wants to get into the enterprise they have to have a management platform. Until I can COMPLETELY control the device, like I can with Blackberry and Good Mobile Messaging now, they aren’t viable. Exchange push isn’t a valid option due to lack of device control and remote wipe/encryption. Once they do that, look out RIM.
By the way, when is OnTime coming to a mobile platform near me? :-)
Tim
Though I appreciate the economic arguments presented by all the users above, and agree with the majority sentiment that the exclusivity of corporate contracts has forced users into situations between which they would much rather not choose, I have to say, having hacked through the iPhone, that its hardware capacity is certainly tolerable. For majority users, and not coders, it is a shame that the public has not been given full control over their devices, but I can see various reasons for that, exempli gratia, malware in varying degrees of nefariousness, unpolished coding causing memory leaks causing eventual kernel panic, OS failure, or simply unreliable platforms, but for those of you who are willing to take the risk, it seems that Googles Android isn’t really in competition with the iPhone. Since Android is merely a nice Firmware for mobile platforms that runs on a *nix-based system, it seems a mildly trivial task to force the hardware to accept it as a firmware, signed or unsigned by the parent company that produced the hardware.
I am a firm believer in the idea that what I buy, I own, regardless of EULA idiocy, and though I may not have a strong defense for trying to reissue modified firmware under my own name, I certainly expect that I may: A.) Modify for my personal use any piece of software and/or hardware, and B.) Produce code that may on user end accomplish similarly, or, at the very least, produce a guide for others to do so. Please spare me the legal arguments about what the intellectual property rights really are, I’m aware of them, but remember they came into being because we all sat back and apathetically watched while companies (*cough* Adobe *cough* Microsoft *cough*) switched from selling software to “leasing licenses”
If Apple and Google truly wanted to gain the largest possible market share, Apple would maintain their signed firmware, with constant additions as they saw fit from the Android system, AND they would allow users to upload a signed copy of Android which was modified for obvious contract-violating holes like VoIP over GPSR/EDGE/3G.
Personally, I would like to see a company that integrated pure VoIP over Cell Networks as listed above, as well as negotiating with companies like AT&T who own the controlling majority of PBX Servers in this country. A device with a full *nix platform and command library, bluetooth keyboard support, computational linguistic intelligence similar to that found in the iPhones adaptive dictionary, and the clean and self-adapting touch-screen support that defines the iPhone. (things like the predictive text capability which increases landing pad area seamlessly to more easily counter human error) One that allows for free VoIP over Wi-Fi, etc…
But then it’s not really a phone is it? It’s a pocket computing platform–with phone capabilities.
Since thats what users in our generation seem to want, however, I see nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I’m stoked.
This is the best article I’ve read to date on the current environment. I too am fascinated by it and can’t wait to see who wins. The two strategies may not be completely opposed. There may yet be room for both growth strategies. Today PC and Apple are both alive and well and fill very different needs. Similar to, perhaps, basketball vs. baseball. Why can’t we love both?
Bryan
just read this. and this article is just awesome to me. (my taste are shallow). i’ve been contemplatomg & reading which are which i would get (iphone or android) and the analogy presented here is just great. the variables are just great too (price, availability, network) ;)