Underestimating Google can be disastrous
Correction, 1:47 p.m. PDT: This story incorrectly described the Apple iPhone. The iPhone does have GPS capability.
Google's first Android-based phone was announced Tuesday and so far, the response has been mixed.
Some believe it'll be the next big thing in the cell phone business because it adds some basics -- such as a physical keyboard -- that the iPhone is lacking. Others believe the G1 will fall flat on its face because it's not unique and its omissions (Exchange support, for one) will make it lose out in the corporate space. (For a full comparison of the two devices, see "T-Mobile G1 Vs. Apple iPhone 3G.")
I tend to agree on both counts. I think Android could be a major hit in the cell phone space, but the G1 won't be able to stand up to Apple or RIM. It's too underpowered and its obvious omissions tell me T-Mobile and Google rushed it before it was ready.
But Android is an entirely different story. At its core, Android is a platform that has tons of potential. It's not only open (which is probably the best feature), it offers full Google integration, which is a key concept in today's age of Google domination, and its touch-screen capabilities mean Apple isn't the only other major company doing something unique in the market.
But my belief that Android will be a success goes far beyond the product itself. Call me crazy, but I can't think of one reason why anyone would underestimate Google. Countless times, companies have ignored Google and let it slip into a market, only to learn when it's too late that it's the leader.
And while it's easy for Apple and the rest to scoff now, you can bet that that's exactly what Google wants.
Who would have thought that Google would become such a powerhouse in the tech industry? Ask.com certainly didn't think it could happen and neither did Yahoo. AOL must have thought Google was just another flash in the pan. Oh how wrong they were.
And what about Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, and the rest? Certainly Microsoft and Yahoo didn't believe that a product called Gmail would make an impact, right? After all, why would anyone actually want to use an online email application from Google when they can use Outlook on any Windows machine in existence? Nice one, Microsoft.
Speaking of Microsoft, where was it when Google was building its online advertising empire? And why didn't it stop Google in its tracks once the company started bringing Google Docs online to compete with Office? Oh, and what about that whole search thing? Didn't Microsoft see that one coming?
Google has its grips in countless markets in the tech industry. It leads the way in search and advertising, but it's a major player in online productivity apps, mapping solutions, and a slew of other places where the leader was supplanted without much worry. And although it's still struggling with YouTube, we can't forget that Google was the only company that had both the money and vision to acquire that site.
The key to Google's success throughout the years is two-fold: it offered superior products because it understood what customers wanted, but it also capitalized on all its competitors that failed to believe that a company with that crazy name could become a powerhouse in any market.
Oh, how wrong they were.
And now, as Android finally hits store shelves next month, companies in the cell phone industry are making the same mistake. Microsoft claims it isn't worried about Android (we've been down this road before, Microsoft), Apple doesn't see it as a worry, and RIM has practically ignored it. All the while, Sergey and Larry have been forming alliances with companies that will see dozens of Android-based phones hit store shelves over the next few years.
Have any of these companies learned anything? Sure, the search and advertising business is much different that cell phone software, but Google's knowledge about what the consumer wants hasn't changed. Worse, Google's understanding of what the market needs has gotten better over time.
At this point, I don't know if Android will lead the way in the cell phone industry and I have no idea if Google will supplant Apple and the rest or face annihilation. But if I had to put money on the most likely outcome, I wouldn't bet against Google. The company has been right too many times to bet against it.
Apple, RIM, Microsoft, and the rest need to wake up and realize that the G1's success isn't indicative of the future success of Google in the cell phone industry. Android is.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
BlackBerry had keyboard since day 1 and WM devices had sliding out keyboards of various shapes and forms since 2003 or so. GPS comes standard with many modern smartphones.
While Android's upside features are not new or uncommon in previous generation smartphones, let alone the new releases, its downside is quite obvious. For the same price I can have BlackBerry with corporate email, iPhone - arguably the best hardware+software combination in existence or Windows Mobile that have everything Android has plus much much more that Android doesn't.
I fail to see an innovation or the buzz factor besides "Its Google phone".
-Don
There are no groundbreaking features - it has a keyboard, GPS and touch screen. You can find that in Windows Mobile devices released in 2005. There are umpteen flaws that are not present in other phones. In IT world, its call "half-a$$ed product".
It is silly to compare it to WM or BlackBerry at the moment, but it will not offer a 1% of what either platform has. Google search? You could do it on any platform. Browser? It was included in WM in early 2000s. There was a similar phone is the past - Sharp made Linux phone that was greeted with a huge "Hurray" by Linux fans as "a platform that is going to kill WM and Palm" because it is open source and everyone will be developing for it. Where it is now? Google has a little more brand power to sell many of them. But to call it "exiting", "groundbreaking", "innovative" game changer (like iPhone was, for instance) will be just stretching the truth.
-Don
-Don
There is absolutely no excuse for rejecting applications other than "does not work as advertised". The inability to access parts of the system that Apple software is allowed to access is also a big thumbs down. A level playing field is a must for an operating system.
That said. The product shines and is popular for a very good reason. It is a very very fun phone that works well.
-Don
-Don
The Zune may look clumsy and outdated, but in reality it is more technologically advanced than any high-capacity mp3 player. The G1 will eventually gain more favorable specs and capabilites, just give it time.
The whole post is about not judging Google's Android platform on the bases of the G1 which is exactly what you are doing ????
Android also has the advantage of cross-carrier change. When a carrier (let's say Verizon) sees the mistakes and flaws of a competitor's Android phone, it can turn around and correct those flaws, making a better product. This is harder to do with Windows Mobile (a proprietaty OS) and impossible to do with an iPhone (a hardware-software package).
That is what excites me the most about Android. The fact that it is relatively easy for companies to customize Android to fit their needs so they can compete with other carriers and ultimately, lead to better products.
-Don
-Don
When Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Palm releases apps and gadgets, everything is on those companies for quality assurance (thus, gaining the trust of consumers). When an outside developers creates applications, Google has no accountability as to the reliability to that product. This in my opinion opens up too much risk to the consumers (especially those who are not technologically apt) to malicious attacks.
My skepticism results from Google's eagerness to release things before it's thoroughly tested (there's a good reason why Gmail is still in "beta" mode after 2 years).
Just my 2cents.
-Don
Huh? How can two people doing the same thing be unique? Maybe the author is trying to say that the full integration with Google is the unique part, but that's not what he wrote. It makes it hard to comment on an article when the writing is unclear...
-Don
Well, I think that there are several phones with that capability, just that they are designed to be touched with a stylus.
-Don
It would also be helpful to assess the target audience for different products. At its core, the iPhone is an iPod plus phone with WiFi web access (multimedia centric) and targets a segment of the market where the absence of a physical keyboard is not important. T-Mobile has "always" featured messaging centric wireless devices with keyboards and the G1 follows in that vein targeting mobile users who are messaging/email centric.
It is impossible for any wireless device to every possible feature with excellence (every one takes up physical or virtual space on the device, can increase size and weight, reduce battery life and increase cost/price). Smart marketing teams make these trade-offs each time they specify a device, knowing that technology will advance before the product is launched and a competitor might come out with a similar product. That's what makes hi-tech fun!
And, no -- you're totally wrong on the second point. The target audiences for both products are exactly the same -- the consumers that want to spend money on a touch-screen device.
-Don
-Don
Several phones are great, maybe better. I is more marketing than other things.
Nokia N95 is great. It has every feature, it has two cameras, it can be used with one hand (every feature), ...
Treo has many features too.
Symbian was recently released as Open Source too.
Big companies like MS and Nokia won't stay sitting there without doing nothing.
So LG and Samsungs biggest selling handsets (released before the iphone), which have full touch screen makes the iphone's unique?
-Don
---------------------------------------
The leader is Yahoo! Mail, closely followed by Microsoft's Hotmail (now called Windows Live Hotmail). Thereafter it gets more uncertain. Gmail is often cited as the third "biggie," but the number of active accounts still falls well short of either of its two largest competitors.
http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statistics.htm
April, 2008
Google is not all-powerful.
-Don
Google was also the first to push the rest of the market into the 2gb+ mail storage barrier and is up to 7gb now. Without google, you'd still be paying MS and Yahoo for anything over 200mb.
AOL/YAHOO/HOTMAIL all equal fail.
-Don
As for all the other companies, i doubt they are ignoring Googles new "tentacle" in the cell phone world...but more or less waiting patiently to see what Googles next move is. This is all a strategy game...who makes the best move to win!??
And the author said it PERFECTLY: "Apple, RIM, Microsoft, and the rest need to wake up and realize that the G1's success isn't indicative of the future success of Google in the cell phone industry. <B>Android is</B>."
This is the first attempt for Google...and i can bet on it that it's not their last!
-Don
-Don
Funny how so much talk and attention is paid to Microsoft and Apple. RIM and Symbian are the ones sitting on the top of the mobile OS mountain. It will take more than search and a browser to change that. As far as compact platforms go, you have to win developers over first and foremost. Good luck drawing them away from MS and Linux with Android.
I believe Android will be a monumental flop. There is nothing compelling about G1 that will make folks defect from any of the other guys. The device is the biggest draw I can see and HTC will likely put other OS's on it or build better ones in the near future.
I think it can be a winner -- if played correctly.
-Don
For example:
HTC has been struggling with WinMob for years they even have their own custom interface that practically means you never need to see or know you are using WinMob.
So why wouldn't HTC grab Android / customize it so it looks totally how they want it to without any WinMob problems and without the cost of a licensing fee to MS??? This frees them to work to their own timetable and not MS which has clearly fallen behind in this market space.
Makes business sense to me.
The only real weakness is then a lack of exchange support for the corporate market but their are many ways this could be addressed.
Please, people, take this kid's report with a grain of salt. Apple has released no statements about the G1, and RIMM has ignored it (or him?) because it's not even on the market yet.
All these "news" sites featuring blogs of random people really shows a poor direction in the news industry. (CNN does it now too.) It confuses readers of what is ACTUAL news, and some random kid with a webcam on a soap box.
Welcome to the era of misinformation.
Your comments make, well, no sense. Explain to me exactly why I'm wrong in this piece (or any others) and how my work here is in some way on-par with a "youtube report."
To me, it sounds like you're an Apple fanboy or worse, a Google hater, and you don't like to read things like this. Or maybe you're just a Yahoo apologist. Either way, I don't see your point.
-Don
Do some research, Don... your articles tend to lack any substance, any knowledge, any fresh ideas.... and simply state common sense (in a sort of uninteresting way).
Take this article for example: You use three short introductory paragraphs to talk about (with limited insight) Android and its launch/features/possible market/etc. Then, for the next 7 paragraphs, you pose a series of common knowledge questions+statements... without any substance, without any numbers, without any legitimate information.... just fluff. Like we didn't know, or had forgotten about Google's impact on Search, Email, etc....?
This entire article - similar to a couple of the others I just read - is FLUFF. Why Bother....?
You said 1 (one) semi-intelligent thing in this article: "...G1's success isn't indicative of the future success of Google in the cell phone industry. Android is." Unfortunately, you also started that sentence with: "Apple, RIM, Microsoft, and the rest need to wake up and realize that..." Like... like Appl, Rimm, Msft.... like they're idiots....? Is this statement assuming they haven't considered Google's impact as an OS...? C'mon. None of these companies would go yellow-belly to say something like, "Yeah, Android is a major concern for us". Have you ever heard a major competitor - IN ANY INDUSTRY - admit fear....? seriously.
I'm not one for tearing others down... but when it comes to a genuine lack of skill+interest.... I'm not usually very tolerant.
dougan.
- by troycollinsworth September 24, 2008 1:22 PM PDT
- Google certainly didn't know how successful many of their products would become. They also couldn't know that viable competitors wouldn't emerge. Their success is partly due to timing and luck. Google has hired lots of great talent from other companies, i.e., Sun, Microsoft, etc. I had the fortune of speaking with Josh Bloch formerly employed by Sun at JavaOne last year. He described the fun low constraint creative environment Google fosters internally. That environment coupled with the great talent has produced many great products and will likely continue. Android is hailed as being more open and unfettered than the Apple iPhone. Creative and talented developers will want to leverage that openness to create great apps for profit. Success for Android will most likely follow. Microsoft Exchange integration will either come or an adequate and possibly better alternative will emerge. Go Google! I would love to work for you.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:21 PM PDT
- No company knows how successful their products will become, but I think Google had an understanding of the market that beat every other company's understanding. It wasn't perfect and it has made mistakes along the way, but wow -- it's good at what it does.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (130 Comments)-Don