Why is Google Android beating Symbian?

In the battle of the open-source mobile platforms, developers have at least two choices: Google Android, which is open source but (relatively) closed development, or Symbian, which is open source...once it gets around to releasing the full source code.

Guess which one is winning?

You can't code me, but at least you can buy me.

(Credit: Google)

Gartner expects Android to become the second-most popular mobile platform within the next few years as it continues to gobble up Symbian's declining market share.

But why?

Symbian has been dismissive of Google Android, as well as smaller upstarts like the LiMo Foundation, arguing that the latter is overly focused on middleware for wireless operators and the former is fake open source with more hype than substance.

All of which might be true, but the reality is that it seems to be working for Android. Google has been signing new handset manufacturers at a frenetic pace, while Symbian has been holding steady with Nokia...and that's about it.

Despite Symbian announcing new handsets, Google is actually shipping Android. There's a big difference between marketing and reality. Google Android offers the latter.

For all the buzz that Android gets from developers, its success owes more to handset manufacturers than to open-source developers. Handset manufacturers and wireless carriers are hungry for alternatives to surging Apple and declining Microsoft. And while others may not be seeing source code in copious amounts, handset manufacturers are apparently getting their fill.

More than this, though, Google gives them a safe, consumer-friendly brand. Symbian does not.

This is the reason Google Android is winning. It's not about developers--at least, not yet. Neither Symbian nor Android really offers developers open communities and open code.

No, the difference today is brand. Google has it. Symbian does not, and that's despite decade-long dominance of the mobile market.

Symbian still has a ways to go. It has a weak user interface (UI) that is supposed to get better, but that describes much that is wrong with Symbian today. Everything (source code, revamped UI, and resumption of market dominance) is always spoken of in the future tense.

Meanwhile, Google Android rolls on--not because it out open-sources Symbian, but rather because it out-executes it.

[paulopmx]

I think Android is winning because the Android Market is a viable competitor to iTunes App Store.

[shuyin84]

YOU'VE GOT TO BE JOKING ME!!!!! Googles "app store" as they like to call it can't even compare, and here's why. apples app store came first, most of the android apps are already on the iPhone and have just been remade to work on the android platform, and if an app is made special to the android platform, it isn't long before it's also on the apple app store.

This is also true of standard features on the android platform, I mean take a look at the fancy shmancy nav system application on the droid. Google has already announced tht their going to be releasing the same thing for the iPhone app store.

[mibollma]

"most of the android apps are already on the iPhone and have just been remade to work on the android platform, and if an app is made special to the android platform, it isn't long before it's also on the apple app store."

this is only an assumption... in fact there are quite a few popular android titles without signs of an iphone counterpart

[ywkhgqo]

shuyin, try not to scream fan boi every other sentence.

THat fancy schmancy nav system, how long is that gunna take though? Right ow, android has an exclusive that's better than anything the iphone app store can put up.
The android app store has around 10,000 apps, and google had NOTHING to start from (no itunes). Not bad. Get you head out of your butt and stop feeling so threatened.

[Lennron]

@shuyin

"apples app store came first, most of the android apps are already on the iPhone and have just been remade to work on the android platform, and if an app is made special to the android platform, it isn't long before it's also on the apple app store.

This is also true of standard features on the android platform, I mean take a look at the fancy shmancy nav system application on the droid. Google has already announced tht their going to be releasing the same thing for the iPhone app store."

So your argument for why Android Market isn't a viable competitor to iTunes App Store is the fact that Apple copies Google and Google copies Apple? If they have all the same apps, sounds to me like it makes Android Market the perfect competitor to iTunes.

[opiapr]

I agree with paulopmx android is the best thing out there after the iPhone. I have an iPhone a work blackberry and my wife has a mytouch. So I play with the 3 and I keep the iPhone in the first spot and the MyTouch in second.

Like I always said the facts is what counts not the trolling. And like always competition is good and a good competitor is even better.

[Otto Holland]

shuyin84
Man...you should try the new Andriod from Verizon and you'll see speed that blows AT&T out of the water. I don't own one but have worked on two so far, I have not seen anything like it ever. Connecting to my Exchange server was a snap and NO, it's not that easy as we are burried behing multiple firewalls, plus our virtual SMTP connector talks only to Postini.

Had it not been for the companies blackberry I am using, I'd have to get me one. I am not a fan boy of neither but I hate any and everything Apple. Too locked down for me and I don't care about their iTunes, that causes every computer to run like molassis uphill. Yes, I am a Verizon customer but my own phone has not been used for over a year, just keeping the number and wasting the added cost every month. iPhone, good, AT&T can go to hell for all I care.

[mibollma]

"It's not about developers--at least, not yet. Neither Symbian nor Android really offers developers open communities and open code."

For me as Adnroid developer it doesn't really matter if Android got an open community.
What does matter from a practical standpoint is that
1. I can browse the Android source at http://android.git.kernel.org/ to find out how the original developers solved specific tasks
2. Google developers are active in both Android newsgroups and Android irc channels helping me out if i run into trouble

Both increasing productivity alot compared to what i was used to from the last 9+ years of software development

[honzasterba]

Or simply because there is only so much time you get before you are forgotten. Symbian has been here and failing for so long that nobody gives a damn what their next move is. Android on the other hand promised, delivered and even exceeded some expectations. It has appeals to most of the users and developers and of course there is the Google logo on the first phone, but that's "only" the thing that started the fire, not the one that got it all over the place.

[rich.sands]

It is also most definitely about developers. Android has a modern development model, Symbian is so last-century. That directly impacts developer productivity. Combine a more up-to-date model with the momentum, the brand, and the out-execution and there is your difference. Oh, and Symbian dissing their competition doesn't boost their karma, does it? Symbian is not a lost cause, but they need to revamp their marketing to be more appropriate for a developer initiative, project a sense of urgency, and deliver on their promises, immediately.

[CreativeMalcolm]

How bout the fact that Symbian can't do anything? I sell iPhones, BlackBerries, Android, Windows Mobile and Symbian. The only phones that I'll pitch even less than a Nokia E71, is a Samsung Jack. Both are useless phones because aside from phoning, txting and a basic organizer they don't do that much! Nokia makes great hardware, it's solid and reliable, but the Symbian OS is dragging them down something fierce. There's just no way to tell someone that a platform that can't even be bothered to look better than Mac OS 9 is really their best option when they can get a BlackBerry, iPhone or Android phone at the same price.

[epgomez]

Right now, a nokia phone is still better than the phones you mentioned (blackberry,iphone and android phone). You are not familiar with symbian and what cool apps are available. right now a nokia phone can surf the net just like the desktop all sites with videos via skyfire browser, i can video chat with skype using fring symbian version, use nokia as a modem to my netbook, take quality pictures and videos with flash and post them in the internet, multitask etc. the battery on the nokia phone doesnt disappoint and so is the phone signal even in the basement and elevator you can call and be called while surfing the net on your device. you just dont know what its capable of doing at this point in time...

[timoteo21]

Like you say, "There's a big difference between marketing and reality." And you are sounding like a marketing shill for Google when you fail to note that Symbian accounts for 44% of global smartphone sales as compared to Android 3.9%.

[mibollma]

However Symbians market share has been declining for years.
2007 72% -> 62.3%.
2008 47.1%

[XCMeathead]

@timoteo21 You're kind of missing the point. Symbian has been around for long enough to build up the largest market share of any mobile OS. The important point is that android is stealing symbian's market share:

Android ? 0% to 3.9%
Symbian ? 49.7% to 44.6%

The show Q3 2008-Q3 2009 figures.

(Source: http://phandroid.com/2009/11/15/android-stealing-symbian-winmo-market-share/)

[timoteo21]

Yes, of course, it is easy to grow when you start at 0, especially if you have Google and all the blogger hype behind you. And, when you own nearly half the market, anyone else's gain is likely to come at your loss. The trends are definitely worth pointing out, but to be fair should also point out how far Android has to go before it is truly "beating" Symbian. Remember, also, these are quarterly sales figures, not installed base.

[raccoondeb]

None of that even matters - Android handsets may be flying out the doors of phone companies right now, but within 30 days, they'll be flying back in - Android software doesn't allow bluetooth voice dialing. It is a legal requirement in many states to use a handsfree device when driving, including California - not possible with Android, and it's listed as a future "enhancement." This is not an enhancement, it's a deal breaker.

[demecles]

@ raccoondeb
My Droid allows bluetooth voice dialing

[dara_parsavand]

> Android software doesn't allow bluetooth voice dialing. It is a legal requirement in many states to use a handsfree device when driving, including California - not possible with Android, and it's listed as a future "enhancement."

While it may be annoying to not have voice dialing (I don't have it either with my iPhone 3g), it is NOT a requirement to use a phone as a driver in the state of California (my state). See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/cellularphonelaws/ which states:

Q: Are there exceptions for dialing?
A: This law does not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name in an electronic wireless device for the purpose of making or receiving a phone call. Drivers are strongly urged not to enter a phone number while driving.

- and -

Q: Does the ?hands-free? law prohibit you from dialing a wireless telephone while driving or just talking on it?
A: The law does not prohibit dialing, but drivers are strongly urged not to dial while driving.

[seven7dust]

Symbian has always been designed for non-touch based phones
or stylus based phones like the UIQ platform
now all of a sudden adding Finger friendly touchscreen support isnt going to help anyone
which is why s60 based touch handsets recieve such poor reviews
the resistive screens don't help either !
even Nokia is moving away form symbian towards Maemo which will probably be the kiling blow to symbian !
in this age of the iPhones and Android phones the lack of finger friendly UI is costing symbian and windows mobile dearly

[sharmajunior]

I miss symbian. It was a good OS for its time.

[gary.edwards]

Maybe it's just me, but i associate symbian with a dominant handset maker - Nokia. For a handset maker, embracing symbian is worse than letting the fox into the chicken coop. It's more like a hen wandering into the fox's den, head down, pecking hard and about to be lunch.

Android however is closely associated with and primarily sponsored by Google - an Open Web application and services provider able to make an Android jump; like with gMail, gVoice, gGizmo, gWave and gMaps.

Sure the day might come when Google enters the handset market and wipes out every Android maker in sight. But i don't see it. Google has too much to gain by enabling a competitive but "open" marketplace of Open Web facing device makers bent on putting into the hands of every human being the information rich Google communications, connectivity and collaborative computing experience.

But that's just me :)
~ge~

Guerra do sistema operacional para celulares esta esquentando.....

[Uribam]

You have to be kidding me. If the Android source code wasn't available, how could we be working on the Andromnia project, let alone have it 25% operational?

[nSeika]

Besides, if there's any company that can compete with Apple about their brand image, it must be Google, not the "old names".

Subjectively, if I heard a lot of peoples saying great things about Android, I might think it's great and want to use it; as well as having a fresh new OS to use instead of seeing the same old Symbian (and Windows Mobile).

[gsmiller88]

No one (in America, anyway) buys Nokia phones anymore. Symbian and Nokia are perfect for each other.

[Mergatroid Mania]

You got that right. It's all about name, recognition, and finances. Google has it all. Just say the word Google and people reach for their wallets. I can't believe how fast they went from announcing the new Android phone o/s to actually having product on the market. Symbian better get their butts in gear or they will be too little too late if they aren't already.....

[bobbarker08]

Compare Maemo and Android and get back to us.

[aozoren]

Symbian sucks! We developed several apps for Symbian and got stuck during deployment. We declined to purchase digital signatures from trustcenter.de for so called symbiansigned program, sign the code, etc. That process alone costs anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars. It is $99 for IPhone and $20 for Blackberry so I don't understand why Symbian has to **** its developers like that. And the funny thing is that they present this symbiansigned **** as good thing for us. The way I see it, it costs me money. I welcome Android as a developer and I can safely say my shop will develop for Android only. Why? Because it is not expensive as Symbian (signing for free is good), not as restrictive as Blackberry, not as limited as IPhone (no background process in 21st century??). I believe Android is the answer and I thank Google for it.