Why Android just might beat the iPhone

Fabrizio Capobianco, CEO of mobile open-source company Funambol, knows mobile better than most, so when he says Android has two killer features that could upend Apple's iPhone dominance, I listen. (It's particularly telling since Fabrizio has been a bit fan of the iPhone.)

The features? Open source and OTA (over-the-air) firmware updates.

Before you dismiss these two, consider Fabrizio's example: Android's potty e-mail client. With any other mobile platform, if you didn't like what the telecom provided, you'd be out of luck. Not with Android. Within a week a developer had created an alternative to Google's lame e-mail program:

A week or so ago Google was alone in developing Android. They made it open source and boom, an internal application is getting perfected by the community. End users benefit from it immediately, because they can download it for free from the Android Market (which is such an easy task to do). The OS allows you to define a default e-mail client, so you are good to go. All this, without any intervention of Google or T-Mobile. The community fixed the issue for T-Mobile...You have to love this one if you are a mobile operator.

Or a customer. Open source gives developers the opportunity to define the mobile experience on the go. Open source enables Google to put out a nice rough draft, but then allow the community to embrace and extend it over time, delivering updates OTA. Google still retains control, but the community retains influence.

It's a perfect combination, and I agree: this could well give Apple a run for its money.

[CDubber]

I assume you're basing this assertion on history (i.e. just like how open source Linux destroyed Windows in desktop computing)?

I agree that Apple needs to become less ham-fisted about its control over the App Store and let innovation truly thrive (where is my real turn-by-turn navigation app???). But Android faces huge obstacles, not the least of which will be the vast array of hardware trying to run it.

[mpeskin]

Agreed. Open source is a killer feature - for geeks (disclaimer: I am one). History has proven this repeatedly, but we hear the same thing every time an open source alternative to a proprietary platform emerges, usually by people (like Capobianco) who have a vested interest in the open source platform's success.

[noprobs]

Indeed,
The example given of others writing an alternative email client for the Android is not a good example as there are already 3-4 alternative email clients (with things like sideways keyboards) available for the iPhone right now which of course can be downloaded from the App Store Over-The-Air as well.

I think one also needs to recognise that the "open" free-for-all, anything-goes development model has already been tried by Microsoft for the last 7 years with WinCE/PocketPC/Windows Mobile and failed miserably. Apple has sold more iPhones in the last quarter than the entire raft of WinMo manufacturers and Blackberry (another proprietary platform) has eaten Microsoft's lunch in the mobile Enterprise which kind of blows the wind out of those sails.

Now you could argue that Android is *more* open than Windows Mobile which would be true, but you also have to face the fact that that hasn't helped Linux on desktop PCs for the past decade.

The other problem Android faces is that consumers don't necessarily want choice and feature-bloat. They want consistency, ease-of-use, style, a one-stop-shop for everything and a complete seamless ecosystem. The overwhelming success of the iPod and the iTunes Store have proven that against all manner of competition.

Unfortunately Android so far has delivered a mish-mash of different GUIs and interface designs that do not hang together well on a clunky, plasticy, bulky piece of hardware. Pretty much what you see in desktop Linux software today. This is not to say Android isn?t a very important new platform and one which will give Apple, Symbian, RIM and MS a run for their money, but I don?t think it is a given that it will conquer all.

I think you really should read Daniel Eran's take on the subject. It is most enlightening and may cause you to re-assess what you think is a given:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/10/03/myth-7-iphone-buyers-will-flock-to-android/

-Mart

[electronista]

I'm not quite so optimistic.

Open-source is all about choice, and that's great -- but as Jobs himself has said, that doesn't matter if the choice isn't what people want.

The problem with Android development is that only a relative handful of apps will necessarily have the level of polish needed to go up against a well-designed iPhone app. Many apps will be great at filling in holes, but they won't be so hot at convincing users to switch -- especially not Joe Casual User who may never find that Holy Grail app in Android Market.

Android is more trouble for Windows Mobile than anything else. It target the same device-agnostic crowd and is already rumored to be supplementing/replacing Win Mobile at ASUS; Motorola and others are definitely on the way, too.

[Jeff Putz]

The tech press and tech addicts just don't get that we're talking about consumer devices. Consumers just don't care if something is open source. They just want stuff that works. It's not any more complicated than that.

And on the flip side, those who are religious about open source and its ability to fix itself and make itself better never admit that there is too much chaos for that to happen in a meaningful way, especially for consumers.

[ArtInvent]

CDubber, the comparison with Windows as an entrenched dominant market share leader is bass ackwards. The iPhone has but a small headstart. For all the hype, it still represents a tiny fraction of cell phones. The market for new users is gargantuan and still in it's infancy. And Linux never had one of the world's IT titans sourcing and pushing it. Now, the fact that any wireless operator or hardware maker can adopt it - well, that's an ADVANTAGE. I mean, MS continues to dominate the market over Apple even with markedly inferior software - largely because of it's far less restrictive hardware licensing policies.

[ausernamenoonehaschosen]

Considering the stability of past google applications in different browsers, it will be surprising to see googles whole new OS work well on different hardware. I wonder if the usability of these apps will be the same across each device it is installed on, I bet not. The user will be overjoyed to learn only certain apps work well on certain phones, and you can't tell which.

[paulej]

Android has a chance to beat the iPhone for two reasons: 1) every phone manufacturer in the world could build an android phone (and probably will just to see how customers respond), and 2) the unrestricted application platform will result in creation of a number of useful applications.

Users want functionality. I do not think most users will go app shopping, but I might be wrong. But, phone manufacturers would certainly bundle some of the best apps with the phones shipped from the factory.

Applications are key to the success of any platform. The other big question I have is, where does this leave Windows Mobile? I can't tell you how much I like synchronizing my Outlook contacts and calendar with my mobile device. But, Windows Mobile is not really that great when it comes to Internet features. I like IE (really, I do), but Mobile IE is the worst excuse for a browser the world has ever known.

[davidwb45011]

Open source is great for geeks. As a geek, when I see a gaping hole waiting for a program to fill it, I'll write that program. But I'm writing it for me, for how I use the device. That means it isn't likely to be polished and it isn't likely to be clean. But it'll be functional. Someone else thinks, "Hey, great program but it lacks XYZ." and within a couple days XYZ has been grafted on. It still isn't polished or clean but it is more functional now. The thing is, there aren't many geeks who think, "Hmm, this program is sure great but it isn't polished and the UI is rough. I'll take care of that."

So open source might make Android the killer phone for geeks but I doubt my mother will buy one. (She does own an iPhone.)

[Heebee Jeebies]

Yep, let Google put out a POS with lame apps, then charge a small fortune for it and requiring anyone that was sucker enough to buy it to have to fork out more money to replace the POS apps that came with it. If Apple did this or Microsoft all hell would break loose. For Google, it makes them brilliant gods of the cellular world. What a bunch of...

BTW the Google phone is about the most ugly phone I have ever seen.

Google is like Microsoft, Apple and many of the large mega corporations. Evil!

Robert

[regulator1956]

Robert,

It's not a Google phone. It's a phone that runs a Google mobile OS.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and you comments have no value.

[Heebee Jeebies]

Google designed the OS for it, that makes it a google phone. They may not have had any control over the ugly looks (I doubt that) but the important part of the phone is all Google.

Robert