Entelligence: Six is much too much
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted July 30th 2009 2:15PM
posted July 30th 2009 2:15PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
Last week, fellow columnist Ross Rubin talked about the state of mobile platforms and how the era for launching new platforms has come to an end. I tend to take a different view of the mobile market. There are currently six major platforms vying for the hearts and minds of users and third party applications developers -- RIM's Blackberry, Microsoft's Windows Mobile, Apple's iPhone, Nokia's s60, Palm's WebOS and Google's Android -- and there's simply no way the market will support that many device ecosystems. But there may yet be opportunity for other players to enter the market.
This is not a new phenomenon. In the early 80s there were a multitude of personal computing platforms. Atari, Commodore, Radio Shack, Texas Instruments, Apple and even Timex (yes, Timex) all were in the personal computing business, long before IBM entered the game. All survived for a period of time selling to an enthusiast market with a focus on out of the box featuresets. Once the target became the mass market, however, user expectations changed from the out of box experience (which essentially meant programming in Basic) to additional capabilities provided by third party software. The success or failure of each PC platform was decided in no small part by the availability of third party software. Exclusive titles, best of breed titles, and titles that appeared on a given platform first determined winners and losers. The same thing is happening today in the mobile space.
The first wireless email devices (which were the ancestors of today's mobile devices) focused only on the out-of-box experience they provided and the core feature of email (and later on, web browsing). Even though all platforms had some degree of third party support (most notably Palm and Microsoft) most non-enthusiast users did not bother with those apps. Of course, the iPhone and Apple's App Store have changed everything. Apple marketed the iPhone not only to the business professional and the enthusiast but to the mass market. In doing so, it positioned core device features like email, web browsing, and voice as table stakes in the smartphone market. The new differentiator isn't the device itself but the added features provided by third parties.
More importantly, Apple provided a direct conduit for third parties to reach consumers through both iTunes as well as on the device. We've now seen efforts from the other five players to launch their own application stores and begin to reach out in greater ways to third party developers. As with the personal computer, it's these third party developers that are going to define which mobile platform wins wins and which loses. And like the personal computer space, six competing platforms will not all be able to gain sufficient traction to survive over the next three years. While we won't likely see a consolidated market with one overwhelming player as we did in the PC space (how that happened is another story for another day) we will likely see three platforms capturing the lion's share of the market with the rest slowly fading into the sunset along with TI/99a personal computer.
But that doesn't mean the market is closed. When Apple entered the market, there were many skeptics who said their effort was too little and too late. While there would be huge inertia working against any new entrant, we've seen from both Apple and Palm that new platforms can be launched effectively, capturing both mindshare as well as market share. While the PC industry is somewhat stagnating as both Microsoft and Apple prepare to launch new desktop OSes that are far more evolution than revolution, today's mobile platforms have dramatically upped the degree of functionality and capability. But none are perfect. There's plenty of room for innovation in the mobile marketplace -- someone will develop the next platform that leapfrogs the current generation. The question is whether it'll be one of the today's players or someone we've not heard from -- yet.
Michael Gartenberg is vice president of strategy and analysis at Interpret, LLC. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net, and he can be emailed at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
This is not a new phenomenon. In the early 80s there were a multitude of personal computing platforms. Atari, Commodore, Radio Shack, Texas Instruments, Apple and even Timex (yes, Timex) all were in the personal computing business, long before IBM entered the game. All survived for a period of time selling to an enthusiast market with a focus on out of the box featuresets. Once the target became the mass market, however, user expectations changed from the out of box experience (which essentially meant programming in Basic) to additional capabilities provided by third party software. The success or failure of each PC platform was decided in no small part by the availability of third party software. Exclusive titles, best of breed titles, and titles that appeared on a given platform first determined winners and losers. The same thing is happening today in the mobile space.
The first wireless email devices (which were the ancestors of today's mobile devices) focused only on the out-of-box experience they provided and the core feature of email (and later on, web browsing). Even though all platforms had some degree of third party support (most notably Palm and Microsoft) most non-enthusiast users did not bother with those apps. Of course, the iPhone and Apple's App Store have changed everything. Apple marketed the iPhone not only to the business professional and the enthusiast but to the mass market. In doing so, it positioned core device features like email, web browsing, and voice as table stakes in the smartphone market. The new differentiator isn't the device itself but the added features provided by third parties.
As with the personal computer, it's third party developers that are going to define which mobile platform wins and which loses. |
But that doesn't mean the market is closed. When Apple entered the market, there were many skeptics who said their effort was too little and too late. While there would be huge inertia working against any new entrant, we've seen from both Apple and Palm that new platforms can be launched effectively, capturing both mindshare as well as market share. While the PC industry is somewhat stagnating as both Microsoft and Apple prepare to launch new desktop OSes that are far more evolution than revolution, today's mobile platforms have dramatically upped the degree of functionality and capability. But none are perfect. There's plenty of room for innovation in the mobile marketplace -- someone will develop the next platform that leapfrogs the current generation. The question is whether it'll be one of the today's players or someone we've not heard from -- yet.
Michael Gartenberg is vice president of strategy and analysis at Interpret, LLC. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net, and he can be emailed at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
The iPhone's OS is technically OSX but it's absolutely a different platform. Last month Apple, by their own marketing, released iPhone OS 3.0, not OS X iPhone 3.0. Nobody refers to it as OS X.
Who pay's him? Well for starters, you do! If you're reading his column weekly youre keeping him in green.
Nah.
All the good business and personal apps are already out there and in some cases have been for years. They're all multi-platform so the OS is largely irrelevant.
Good point...i was going to speak on the same thing. What the old computer OSs didnt have what is common place today is cross-platform apps. All of todays phone os have their strengths and weaknesses. I can scan across those names and immediately think of at least one strong point and weak point for each phone os. As long as app developers support a multitude of os, I see each on staying viable for a long period of time. If Nokia wasnt such a powerhouse handset manufacturer, I would say s60 had the next shortest future, with WebOs as the most vunerable. Back in the day Commodore and RS was the leaders...ahhh the good times those were.
I think S60 has a short future. I think Symbian will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future.
I also think Android and WinMo stand a good chance of survival because they're multi-distributor. WebOS is dependent on Palm's success and, frankly, that doesn't look likely considering it lukewarm reception in the US. RIM and Apple are also at risk because they're one manufacturer - Apple far more than RIM because of its extremely limited handset range.
@Mark Anderson: I'd actually say that RIM has a better chance of going under than Apple, because of the current demand for Apple's products.
@thisisdg
really?! i remember one of articles saying that rim has sold more then apple.... so fail
I disagree. RIM has a sound corporate market as well as a growing consumer base - it's growth is at least as good as or better than the iPhone's.
Apple does not. It has precisely one consumer oriented product with minor variations which is absolutely at risk if and when the next big thing comes along (HTC Sense UI on Android with better hardware springs to mind). Once that happens it's going to lose market share massively and become less and less relevant.
Don't believe me? Who would have laid odds on Motorola being in the state it's in now when the RAZR was at its height? They too made the mistake of putting their eggs in one basket then they got overtaken and fell off the map.
RIM has always had more sales AND GROWTH than Apple. From a iPhone Blog:
http://www.theiphoneblog.com/images/stories/2009/05/gartner_smartphone_marketshare.jpg
@syadasti:
Or you could read it as "Apple doubles market share while RIM only grows with 50%".
@Andune
Only if you were being really, really silly.
@Mark Anderson: Really, I think much of Apple's success with the iPhone is due to the fact that there is really only one model so people know what they are getting, and Apple can focus its development and advertising resources on that one model.
I agree. Cell phones is still a shelf space game. Who gained the most market share over the past 4 years?...Samsung. Despite a single remarkable product. Why? Because they crank out the most unique models per carrier (and also underprice, which only they and Nokia can do b/c of global scale). Now that smartphones is the only real growth subsegment in US mobile phones, it will be about the OS, but a multi SKU, multi carrier model is essential.
@Miles
And if - or when - something as compelling or better comes along they're screwed.
@Dking
Yes RIM has sold more phones that Apple, but, the whole hype around it is that apple is selling their phones at a much higher rate then RIM.
@Macman
Except they actually aren't.
Silly kids, Apple will be around whether you want them too or not. While they may have only one product, it is well polished and thought out. Not to mention the iTunes/iPod ecosystem is one of the largest in the world. I remember all of the crap about the iPod being terrible and how the Dell jukebox was going to take it down - blah blah blah - Apple has it down to an art form and they know how to survive.
I think Palm's Web OS has a great chance of surviving if it can grab into corporate America, the people it is really marketed towards according to ARS Technica. RIM will be around. Nokia's lack of inovation in the smart phone segment matches that of microsoft and I could see both of those platforms falling appart without any major overhauls.
Android is just like linux in my opinion, it will always be relegated to a nitche environment of developers, it lacks the polish of WebOS and the iPhone OS. There is a huge benefit in having the OS created by the manufacturer in that the operating system is better fit to the phone itself, creating a final product that is more cohesive (especially for RIM, Apple, and Palm).
Sure, Josh, they demonstrated those awesome survival skills back in the early 90's. They might be lucky again, who knows?
iPhone's OS is about as similar to OSX as Windows Mobile is to Windows Vista - they're related, which in no way implies that they have similar features.
Also, things are different this time around. What he SHOULD be asking is which of the OSes have compatibility with each other's applications? With the advent of Java as a language of choice for many mobile apps, there is a level of cross-compatibility.
because it has the Cocoa Touch interface over OS X
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't iPhone OS and OS X similiar because they are both based on Darwin. This is different from Vista and Win Mobile in that Vista is part of the Windows NT family of OS's while Win Mob is based on Windows CE, a entirely different OS.
@ieatzpie
The iPhone OS is essentially the Mac OS X but with some additional frameworks (i.e. related code libraries for doing things like interpreting data from the accelorometer) and the Cocoa Touch interface. Core frameworks are, I believe, basically the same. Certainly the lower-level aspects are the same.
Is "iPhone" an Operating System? I thought it was Apple Mobile OSX?
Correct me if I am wrong.
I think the official name is "iPhone OS". It shares the lower layers of the software with Mac OS X, but the Application layer and the user interface is entirely different.
So it's definitely a different platform, because OS X apps won't run on the iPhone OS and vice versa (well, not unless your a developer anyway), but Apple can leverage any technology improvements and bug fixes from the lower levels of OS X in the iPhone OS and vice versa. This is in contrast to Microsoft's efforts, where the Windows Mobile is entirely different from the desktop version for all intents and purposes.
Personally i wouldn't consider the S60 as being a separate platform - why not call it ... vs Symbian OS... but whatever.
Because S60 is a flavor of Symbian, actually a user interface, much like the idea of a Linux (or *nix, if you want) distribution. There's UIQ, now basically dead, S40, found on lower-end phones by Nokia and others, as well as S90, S80... To further complicate things, there are feature-packs and resolution issues, as well as other hardware concerns between different models, and different version of the operating system itself.
With the switch to QT, I think Symbian will become very competitive in the smartphone space, no matter how you define "smartphone".
Given the 6 choices I'd say 4 will survive: WinMo, iPhone, Android and Blackberry(sorry Pre fans, I just don't see the draw over Android which is more mature and more feature rich). WinMo and blackberry are just too important to businesses to go anywhere, and Android and the iPhone just pack too many features for either one to go away any time soon. There's one MAJOR difference between this and the early PC's: the carriers. Each carrier will need its flagship device and it's becoming clear they don't want to share so unless one of the carriers goes under, I don't see there being less than 4 major smartphone players.
In five years, the "carriers" will be struggling to survive, and in ten years they will be gone or irrelevant. The future of telephony is IP, not switched networks.
I think Palm has a better shot than Android, because Apple and Blackberry have allready demonstrated that integrated solutions are incredibly strong in the mobile marketplace. The problem both WinMo and Android face is the headaches of software and hardware coming from different places.
Android's Linux roots may appeal to gadget enthusiasts but for the consumer user this isn't really much of a big deal at all, they want a solid experience. So far Android hasn't really taken off as much as some predicted, and part of that is the sometimes haphazard user experience, something that iPhone/BB/pre users aren't having to deal with. I think a Linux based phone will face alot of the same problems Linux has on the desktop. Without a strong guiding vision, the design will splinter and diverge.
In five years, the "carriers" will be struggling to survive, and in ten years they will be gone or irrelevant. The future of telephony is IP, not switched networks.
Incorrect sir. It's irrelevant if the future of telephony is IP. There still needs to be infrastructure and technology allowing signals from a wireless device to connect to a wired IP network, and the carriers are the only ones willing ($$$$) to handle that need.
What haphazard user experience? The user experience is absolutely solid throughout the device. There is one very clear reason why Android hasn't done as well as some of the other platforms: it's only available on one phone(ok, as of this week 2 phones) on the smallest of the major carriers in the US. Heck, even with all that, the G1 is still the 5th best selling smartphone in the US. It may not be selling like the iPhone but it's sure not flopping.
Android has yet to get a VGA device which is a major fail IMO.
@bandigolo: Ditto with iPhone and Blackberry. I don't really see that changing the game any time soon.
I have a Diamond and HVGA is the only thing keeping me from Hero. It's a deal breaker for me.
@Quix: I don't see that being a problem. What manufacturers have been doing with Android has been fairly limited to skinning and honestly it doesn't matter what changes they make. Why would anyone care if your Android phone looks or behaves exactly like all other Android phones? As long as it's self-consistent(which Android tends to be) then none of that matters. I could easily see Android expanding massively and having the vast majority of users not even know they're using Android, but just being happy with their specific phone. I think you're assuming too much with respect to the importance of the OS running when most consumers only know the phone it's running on. A good example would be the RAZR since I doubt the majority of people who have owned one could name the OS running on it.
I agree with you Mark
I don't know about Palm making it in the long run.... I just don't see it happening. As an investor I was praying for a better reception but its hasn't been as good as I would of thought. Android/Winmo/Iphone/ and RIM will be around for a while though I do believe RIM will lose market share because lets be honest they are moving at a tortoise pace when it comes to innovation... I know they are doing good now but in a year or two... I doubt they will be in the same position.(BGR) recently posted an article on this subject matter
Is it that easy to completely eliminate the most widely used mobile OS out there i.e. Symbian?
@mark
User experience won't change among most phones, simply because of the Open Handset Alliance. Google is not telling manufacturers what their phone must have, like a dedicated search button. Every Android phone except the G1 has one. Its why Samsung isn't playing Android. Google now has a heavy hand in Android hardware development and now instead of Android being a kernel (one android, many different distros samsun distro, htc distro, same engine but different wheels) its not the Entire Os on these phones. You can now, as a hardware manufacturer only build up on Android, not change his parts.
Good for users, but bad for hardware mans.
@Joshua: I think so, though it'll take a few years. Their market share, while massive, is quickly faltering while many of the others are rising. They need something really, really good in order to turn that trend around and, at least with the N97, I don't really see that happening.
@Mark
Actually Symbian's smartphone market share increased to 41% last quarter. I wouldn't write them off because of the entrenchment factor.
Mark, that's an interesting argument for 4 OS's, but I don't think carriers will be able to use exclusive OS's as a dividing point. After all, Android is free. Speaking of Android, you could see are carriers going exclusive with different "flavors" of Android. For instance, maybe T-Mobile locks down the HTC Sense experience...but even that is probably unlikely.
Here's what I see happening:
The surviving OS's will include Apple's, RIM, Android, and Windows Mobile. Symbian is in long term danger, and Palm is still a big question mark.
2 years from now, Android will be sitting at #1, with enough phones to blanket the market and completely alter the best laid plans of your evil neighborhood cellular carriers. By then, the carriers, will be barreling headlong toward becoming dumb datapipes and incapable of pillaging consumers any longer for ringtones or screensavers or charging for 500 byte text messages. The Cartel in Cupertino will have backed the iPhone into the profitable but expensive and exclusive niche that all Apple products occupy. And WM7 will regain Microsoft some marketshare, but can never really challenge Android, unless Microsoft decides to give it away for free as well, but that's not their business model.
Android wins, and consumers win.
@Mark:
"I think so, though it'll take a few years. Their market share, while massive, is quickly faltering while many of the others are rising. They need something really, really good in order to turn that trend around and, at least with the N97, I don't really see that happening."
i'll just leeave this here: http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_n97_and_5800_xpressmusic_are_vodafone_uks_best_sellers-news-1025.php
I have one of those too, but a bit more global(from a quick google search on "nokia market share"):
http://www.gadgetteaser.com/tag/nokia-market-share/
Well i'm not going to pretend i'm a giant Nokia fanboy, i switched from a Nokia N95 to a Samsung Omnia HD a few weeks ago and i'm happy about it. But i still like the Symbian OS, i don't have any problems with it, the only thing i miss are super awesome 3D games.
Also keep in mind Symbian is in the process of going open source which may help them keeping/strengthen their position.
@ Mark
"A good example would be the RAZR since I doubt the majority of people who have owned one could name the OS running on it."
That would P2K if I'm not mistaken for GSM RAZRs/SLVRs and P2K5 for GSM KRZR and L9/72
The only reason that I know this is because I've done lots of MotoModding for a while now.
It's no android (not even close) but customizing every aspect of the device is fun as hell.
i'm a high school student, and a few months ago i was listening to a speaker from Microsoft's mobile division, and she stated that Microsoft is paying far more attention to Android than any other OS. She said that MS really can't imagine that one day every phone will run iPhone OS, but that it could imagine a day when every mobile device is run on Android, partially because it is flexible and scalable with different hardware
Again the Americans (I am assuming) come across as being a little tunnel visioned on this issue. Nothing personal against anyone in particular; just in general.
You don't have a lot of Symbian devices in NA so you dismiss it outright. Right now it is the dominant OS for smartphone OS and a whopping 43%-49% of the market share (smartphone). This is not including the billions of devices it's ALREADY on and in operation. So a couple billion Symbian devices vs 17 mill iphone OS vs the other odd millions in other devices. Right now it's quite clear that Symbian isn't quite going anywhere yet.
The one area in which Symbian OS still outplays most other OS is in it's ability to allow proper mobile execution. While everyone is so hooked-on-phonics with "touchscreens", they think the market is going to be dominated by 2hand optimised devices. Fail. One of the fundmentals of mobile phones and even other mobile devices is about being accessible and optimised for operations in a MOBILE enviroment. This does not simply mean it's easy to put in your pocket but that you can pull it off and effectively use it 1handed and in most cases, without ever looking at your devices; something Nokia and symbian is well known for.
Usability of the OS is only 1 part of the equation. Nokia may eventual phase out symbian from their devices but at the moment I doubt it. Their touchscreen devices only make up a very small segment of their devices and at most these would be phase out in favor of using a different OS deisgned specifically for touch. non-touch devices will still be more popular, more practical and more usable ( in real world use) and in the end, I see no rationale for other device makers dropping out of symbian as a platform totally. For this market, symbian devices dominate for a reason. NA mindset is still terribly PC centric and everything ppl have been reporting and saying just reinforces that belief that NA still doesn't yet understand the mobile environment.
2hand touch devices (phones, tablets etc) will fill a market but the largest portion of the market will be filled by 1hand optimised and operable devices.
Hopefully one day we can install whatever OS we want on our phones (without having to hack it - just like desktops). Then six won't be too much, hell..how many distributions does Linux have now?
Exactly. And I'm betting that isn't too far from off... well, maybe not with the BB or iPhone, but certainly Android/WinMo/Symbian should be swappable.