Entelligence: Six is much too much
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted Jul 30th 2009 2:15PM
posted Jul 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.
WinMo phones like the HTC Touch and the Samsung Omnia (which I use) are able to run Android off of the SD card using a program called HaRET. The Touch actually works quite well with Android and has been getting better over the past months; the Omnia still is in the early stages but the battery, touchscreen, WiFi and most of the buttons all work.
There might be room for someone new, but I think WebOS has the longest legs here. The way it handles multiple running apps, launching, and especially notifications is the best out there. Of course, it's not going to dominate the market because it will only run on Palm devices, and there are too many strong players for one hardware manufacturer to simply win.
I wouldn't mind seeing them license WebOS to other manufacturers, but I don't think there's any possibility that we'll be seeing that any time soon.
I just hope it survives long enough to get strong third-party support and show up on a few more phones (I'd especially love a Pre-like touchscreen-only device that is perhaps slightly thinner). It's really a great platform.
I disagree with you there. While it's neat to have different cards running different apps on the Palm Pre, it doesn't seem too drastically different from Android and same goes for the notifications in which I'd say Android is the best in class. The sticking point for me, and I think it will be for the consumer, is the limitations of web apps. I think the application market for the Pre(even when it does eventually open) will relatively quickly reach a saturation point where developers will hit the ceiling of what web-based apps can do. The fact that the market hasn't opened up fully yet doesn't help matters at all and it seems likely that WebOS will fade from consumers memories rather quickly. All of this isn't to say that the Pre/WebOS isn't good enough to make it, just that they needed to capture consumer opinion and that doesn't seem likely at this point.
Mark: The WebOS is currently limited to the HTML5 apps, yes, but there is already one java backended program on it, and there will likely be more in the future when Palm can work out the security on it. However, as Google and many other people have proven, what you can do with HTML/CSS/Javascript is nearly endless. For raw number crunching you need a true binary backend, but as data coverage becomes a better net, it's easier to offload that work to a remote server without hurting the experience. GMail on the desktop has been a fantastic example of that. Google created what is quite possibly the best email experience in the world while only requiring the end user to have HTML/CSS/Javascript. The big issue with the transition to the phone is that data is not always a given, so some part must be run locally for it to be useful. A correct mixture of the two(which HTML5 is fantastic about) makes the difference between local and remote almost disappear, and no data just means no updates.
This is where the Pre is going. They weren't the first to try it(Apple did with the web apps) but they have they have it implemented better than anyone else before them, and developments in the underlining web technologies have come to a point where it does work. I have a parallel to almost every desktop and web application on my Pre, and it all works pretty good(still lots of room for improvement).
When I said I had a parallel to almost every desktop application, I meant that I use daily. Of course there is no photoshop or the likes. My wording was poor.
@mark: Palm will quickly open the hardware up more in a future SDK. The same thing happened with the iPhone. Apple told developers that they should write web apps. That was the plan for extensibility. Then the jailbreakers showed them that there was real demand for apps that accessed and interacted with the device at a lower level -- thus the SDK. Palm is following down that same road, albeit hedging a little against the web-based-only failure on the iPhone by providing a framework that allows access to hardware like the accelerometers, etc. The first reviews of the SDK will say "better than Apple's first try, but lacking. We can't port games. We can't truly harness the hardware." Palm will then change the SDK just like Apple did (or the jailbreakers or 'rooters' as it's called 'rooting' the phone as opposed to 'jailbreaking').
@Hel: I don't doubt it, but your missing the other, much bigger segment of my statement: timing. It's already taking way too long for the app marketplace to open up even initially. Add another 6 months to a year to get native apps rolling(probably closer to 1 year considering the massive overhaul writing a new full API takes) and you're giving it just enough time to fade from consumers' minds completely. Not to mention that Palm can't really afford any kind of drop in profits right now. They're treading on thin ice in the middle of summer.
The iPhone never supported Web-Apps in the sense that the pre does. Apple initially told developers to essentially create *websites*, which is really a day-and-night difference.
HOW COULD YOU FORGET AMIGA?
Amiga = Commodore. Much like Chevy = GM.
Amiga was Commodore. Also, he was talking about the early 80's, not the mid to late 80's. Amiga was released in Sep. '85.
The real omission from the list was actually Apple.
More specifically, by the end of the 80's the personal computer market had been boiled down to 4 platforms: MS-DOS, Macintosh, Amiga, and Atari ST. Atari kicked it around 1990 or so, and Commodore went under in 1994. This left a little 1%-2% hole for various "Posix Compliant" OS's to wriggle into over the next few years like Linux, NetBSD, BeOS, etc. MS released Win95 and thus we were left with the 3-platform situation we have today. It could also be argued that it is a 2-platform situation, since OSX is really just a highly customized BSD.
There's a distinction to be made here between the early 80's PC market and the smartphone market: smartphones come with most of the everyday apps people need to use on a regular basis, regardless of which of the six platforms you get. Early PCs came with very little pre-installed, so it was vital to get one that allowed you to install a third-party word processor or spreadsheet. All smartphones come with an email client, a browser, contacts organizer, etc, so while third-party apps are a nice addon feature, they're not as vital as they were with PCs.
So did most of those early "end user" oriented PCs
Atari/comodore both included basic apps with the machines.. sure one of those was "basic" for most platforms, but basic use was covered out of the box.. it wasn't until the IBM PC that you got a machine aimed at mass market with no software again.. PC-DOS was shipped with basic, and a text editor (2 later one) but for the most part the small and cheap "home" pc's all came with software that would make them handy even if no 3rd party software was ever made..
So yes it is very similar to todays phone market.. with the added layer of carrier nonsense mucking with the market.. which had no real analog in the old days of PC markets.. the closest would have been "where the machines and addons where sold" IE who got the best deals with retailers .. hence atari/comodore selling huge at toys r us.. while high end retailers all had apples/amiga/perhaps PCjr.. and sears and its ilk going with amstrad and other clones.. .and then we have Tandy.. selling through the largest chain of dedicated "computer stores" in the country... likely in the world at the time...
Yes i am skipping over the TI 99/4a, colecovision adam addon, etc.. but those where similar to the rest.. the moral of this story...
Its not so much that the MARKET cannot support 6 platforms.. since clearly they are all aimed at different segments of the market.. clearly APPLE and RIM are not relying on the same consumers to stay afloat.. so they are not in direct competition..
I think the bigger question is.. can the 6 remain financially viable in the long term.. Palm is in VERY different financial state than Apple was when the iphone was released.. they had the luxury of time to build out their developer market/marketshare/sdks.. in many ways Apple is STILL building.. Can Palm, Inc.. stay alive long enough for its offering to become financially viable? Will Nokia stay with Symbian forever? Will RIM stay "unique" with its own OS? or will both companies end up adopting Android in the long term?
The only OS that currently have enough critical mass to remain financially viable both for their owners and developers within the ecosystem are Winmobile and iPhone.... with symbian and rim both being viable.. in special cases for a few developers but the bulk of the market for software on both platforms is hobby/free or corporate stuff..
My prognostications for the next 5 years of Mobile OS space..
1) Palm Inc, folds with its IP being bought by Apple or MS
2) Symbian folds, with its primary supporters joining the Android camp
3) Android becomes the DOMINANT player in non phone smart devices.. (think everything from picture frames, to connected TV/DVD/Alarm clocks etc.. basically anything with a screen and embedded linux today) while holding its own as a distant 4th behind Windows, Featurephones and Apple in the phone space... Remember the reason most phones are feature phones is the control that the Carriers love having .. they tolerate smartphones but would MUCH rather you use a featurephone thats locked down as tight as possible when on their networks..
4) Apple remains the dominant Consumer Smartphone.. and grows the platform "up" into several form factors (think 7 and 10" tablets, possibly the next "apple tv", etc
5) Windows Mobile remains the 999lb gorilla in the overall phone market due to the massive installed base and business centric nature of windows mobile for so many years
6) Rim switches its core to be Android rather than its own custom OS for ease of use and sanity.. alllowing it to ship its software stack on more platforms than simply its own devices ..
"both Apple and Palm that new platforms can be launched effectively, capturing both mindshare as well as market share."
Really? Moving 300'000 units is "an effective launch" and leads to "capturing market share"?
Dude... let's wait just a bit before we declare Pre a market share success....
dude - the iphone 3G / 3GS was worldwide. take a look at the original iphone numbers (from June 2007) when it was US release only. all the apple fanboys that rip on the pre keep forgetting that the product came from the guy who invented the ipod - the pre is a great product. the iphone is a great product. If you want to get work done on the iphone - ehhh not so much until multi-tasking and other features come to it (read joshs rant on that). if you want to have 65,000 apps at your finger tips on the pre - ehhh not so much until devs start jumping on (which hopefully they do). believe it or not competition for the iphone is good - it makes it better.
@Chad
I don't think bondirotta was contesting the iPhone's success; everyone knows it's a great success. I think he was saying that it's too hasty to say the Pre was a success in mindshare or market share.
RIM's Blackberry, Microsoft's Windows Mobile, Apple's iPhone, Nokia's s60, Palm's WebOS and Google's Android
there are still some java phones and winmo can run some java apps as well, I'd rather have ARM linux stuff like those used on nokia n810 kind of MID instead of android or preOS as it's more open, more generic. I think those will all die when we can run lean xp on x86 compatible CPUs on MID/Cellphones in near future.
Sounds unlikely. Imagine trying to navigate through menus of a desktop OS with your finger for a good reason why. Not to mention most people just wouldn't want a full fledged desktop OS on their phone.
a desktop OS can use a different shell, just like MCE GUI, plus other customization. there are some nice size MID/UMPC using xp/linux already. I think having a full OS on phone is the final resolution, at least for me.
i think that in a few decades regular PCs (with normal PC capabilities) will be small enough to fit in a pocket. for mobile phone use there will be a special touch friendly GUI with big buttons, but it will also be possible to wirelessly connect the device to a keyboard and monitor and use it as a PC, this time with a desktop PC GUI
and when that happens all mobile smartphone platforms will die because we will all have regular windows on our "phones"
@ Mark
"Sounds unlikely. Imagine trying to navigate through menus of a desktop OS with your finger for a good reason why. Not to mention most people just wouldn't want a full fledged desktop OS on their phone."
Excellent point.
I remote connect into my home PC via my iPhone quite a bit and navigating around the screen is extremely cumbersome at best.
See, but with the G1 you get all those things as well, plus a few like a better camera, a compass, and many applications with advanced features Apple wouldn't allow on the iPhone platform. Plus, you can usually get deals on the G1 down to $79.
Stupid comment system, that was supposed to be a reply to The "i"
I realize that, but then he was talking about the iPhone 3G, plus the G1 costs quite a bit less than a 3GS, and the 3GS JUST came out. Plus the G1 can do video recording as well, though not at the same resolution. We can talk about Android vs. iPhone 3GS in 6 or 7 months by which time I'm sure some very decent Snapdragon and Tegra Android phones will have come out. I'm fairly sure at this point the iPhone and Android will continue to leapfrog each other every 6 months.
...and the post I was referring to disappeared... What the crap is going on?
Why on God's green earth would you want a compass when you have a GPS? Seriously, if I'm somewhere that I don't have data service, and my phone's GPS can't figure out where it is, I deserve to be eaten by wolves.
Personally I don't care how many platforms are out there. The key to success is to provide ability to present, exchange and backup information on mobile handsets. Today I think Google is the closest to making it happen their "crack dealer" mentality mimicking Microsoft of the 80's and 90's is working.
RIM is in the most trouble I think - they pushed boring handsets to the business folks and now it's hard to win young adults brought up on flashy phones.
Microsoft will not give it up but I'm hard pressed to see them succeed anytime soon: too much Windows in their mobiles.
Apple is hard to gauge - control freak mentality is not going to work in the long run. The only way I can see them winning this race would be to stop playing monopoly with AT&T, open up to other carriers and reap ungodly profits from SERVICES. That's assuming that Google won't beat them to the finish line...
@ The "i"
please be more informed and less opinionated.. iphone os is vunerable as the pre...but to a much much lesser degree. Anytime an os is associated to one device... it can easily be subjected to consumer demand.
"Competitors are struggling to keep up with the iPhone" ..that couldnt be any farther from the truth. There is NOTHING special that isnt being done or can be done on another os. "struggling" would mean that no matter the advancements, other os just cant close the gap on the iphone. the Pre put that notion to bed... unless apple introduces a variety of devices, or licenses the mobile os (highly unlikely)... the iphone will fade from consumer interest just as other fad phones, like the moto rzr.
I don't think the Palm WebOS can be considered in platform discussions yet - it has only one device running it on one network in the US, and who knows what sales are like outside the US.
Talk about the eco-system of the 4 established platofrms - s60, iPhone, WinMo, and BlackBerry. Each has thousands of applications that provide functionality and utility. Of these it's the iPhone that has 70 fart applications. The others don't have such odd applications. So the number of applications available on the various platforms is skewed based on the audience targeted by iPhone develoeprs - fools who will easily part with thei money.
I think the other platforms provide a lot better applications that enhance the usage of the device. But - when it comes to making money for the app developers and the platform vendor - Apple does currently have the edge. I just hope that the other platforms don't end up competing with fart apps.
"six competing platforms will not all be able to gain sufficient traction to survive over the next three years" So when your contract comes up for renewal in two years, make do with the phone you have for a year instead of possibly locking into something that may spiral into oblivion.
Though, by that time, it may be fairly obvious what platforms are going strong and which aren't.
I was going to suggest that it may not be all that cut and dried- take a look at Palm's comeback, but that still doesn't mean that PalmOS is back from the grave, on the contrary, WebOS means that PalmOS is definately end-of-life'd.
I think the Apple iPhone will prevail for several reasons. In my opinion, they have such a big lead in this new wave of mobile OS's that it will be hard for someone to catch up, unless something drastically happens, which I highly doubt from Apple. The iPhone is by no means flawless, but it has great fan fare, consumer appeal, and developers will target products with those attributes. To me Apple is sort of like Nike with their commercials and clever marketing strategies. Nike makes you say, "Man can I really fly if i have those sneakers (M.Jordan). This is why ppl continue to buy their product. And this is the same reason why ppl need to stop acting like the Pre, or even the G1 is going to take over something. They just don't get with those stupid commercials. I can almost guarantee that no one went out and bought that phone from looking at the commercials, and this is what palm and tmobile has to do. I'm rooting for them b/c it creates innovation which benefits us, the consumer. You have to capture the uneducated consumer.
Everyone doesn't read Engadget or Gizmodo to know all the benefits of a particular phone. Apple seems to capture those consumers that don't read the blogs, but watch their commercials when they're watching tv. Those are where the bulk of their consumers are going to come from. Not from ones who read blogs and no all the ins and outs of a product. When Palm and Tmobile do this, the game officially starts.
Besides that the iphone has connectivity issues with the network, is nowhere near as business friendly as it needs to be to threaten RIM/WINMO, and they're starting to get flack from people for blocking apps there is a popular demand for (Slingbox, Google Talk, etc).
The iPhone was a revolutionary device, but this doesn't make it "the best out there."
Unlike early PCs, 3rd party smartphone software is not limited by the retail space... everything is (or will be) downloaded from platform-specific online stores. Furthermore, if most apps people download are free, customers will have (and already do have) little problem switching from one kind of smartphone to another, if there is an overall improvement in fun, design, and ease-of-use.
Despite this being a us-centric blog, i find some of the opinions amusing.
1st of all i'm currently in nigeria and based on what i'm seeing here i could make some assumptions.In developing nations which i'm sure account for a large percentage of mobile users worldwide (due to lacklustre landline services), nokia's and by extension symbian are market leaders by a long stretch.Even other s60 manufacturers(lg,samsung) lag far behind due to brand name.I've only seen an iphone in the hands of the rich due to its real price(no contracts here) while nokias are owned by all and sundry.
S60's strength comes from its diverse range and pricing which caters to all income ranges so unless apple and co. decide to change strategy soon, i don't see them encroaching on symbian's dominance in these parts of the world.
No one here can grasp the concept of a bluetooth enabled phone unable to transfer files*gasp*.Also right now there's a modified version of opera mini thats able to browse free of charge(high data tariffs). So java support is mandatory. The list could go on but to cut a long story short most of these os's have a long way 2 go although android has the potential.
Symbian has worldwide dominance because they have more than one phone, so to a degree, you're right about Apple having to change their strategy if they want to compete on that level, but as far as a mobile OS's go, Symbian fails because of that same "put a phone in everyone's hands' strategy. They can't have one OS and try to cram it on a phone that can't deliver a great user experience. This is the same problem with Windows Mobile. Put a phone OS in everyone's hands at the expense of user experience. Not every phone delivers the same experience. If mobile OSX, Android, and Palm can figure out how to do this, while not having to water down the user experience to a point where it sucks, Symbian is in trouble. Android is already starting to do this.
@chanze
You miss the point. It doesn't have to have a great user experience, it just has to have an acceptable one at the right price point. Nokia's UI is used by millions upon millions of people and has been a gradual evolution since the 90's. It's not great and it needs and overhaul but it is familiar. That's why Nokia outsell everyone everywhere except the US.
There will be a time when maybe only 1 or 2 of these are dominant in the market. Blackberry/WinMo will probably stick around regardless simply due to businesses, and the rest will be decided on mass market appeal which is why I think that in the end unless Apples policies radically change that the iPhone/Mobile OSX will become a tiny minority/niche player. Simply due to the fact that the other OS'es are scalable meaning they can compete at both ends of the markets if the handset is right. And consumers now are want a move towards a more consolidated system for phones, like with desktops. So applications for one phone are interchangeable between different brands of phones, and OS's like Android/Symbian/WebOS are much more likely to be able to offer this due to their open nature. And I actually think that the eventual winners will be the first to create a lowish/midrange handset with a slightly stripped down/spruced up UI (in the case of Android and Symbian) phone with mass market appeal, because then you'll have a situation where a huge majority of phone users growing up are used to one platform and so are more likely to continue buying phones with that OS.
Nokia's probably in the best position atm to do this with Symbian, but so far their low/midrange Symbian Touchscreen phones have been huge letdowns by lacking style and usability.
Six is too much? Then kill off Blackberry and Symbian. Both mobile OSes are a tiresome pain to use.
Did somebody watch this Saturdays episode of BBC Click? This article seems pretty similar to one it featured ;)
Generally I agree with what was said, but it is a lot worse than just operating systems, different handsets using the same operating system have different features like screen resolution and other hardware, making the problem even worse for developers.
Bring back Java, oh wait...noooooooo
I have had some comments deleted before and noticed something strange going on here, but oh well. Lets see if I get deleted here or in my other comment ;)
Its a hard line to draw, the comments often offer much more value than the original article, but unmoderated can be bedlam
"breakthrough" in style and price maybe, but it can't even run IM in the background.
I think in the long run, Symbian, WebOS and BlackberryOS will be defeated in marketshare to Android since Android can be placed on any platform. WinMo is just losing it's relevance really fast... MS better hope that WinMo7 is as amazing as Windows 7 has been to the PC world. But so far I see a future dominated by Android and iPhone.
I 100% agree with you in the consumer market, but you aren't taking into consideration businesses. The iPhone and Android are nice toys for consumers but any serious business will always go WinMo or Blackberry. Plus Blackberry still outsells the crap out of the iPhone. This is coming from a G1 owner.
Wow good point, I didn't even think of the business world haha. But I work as an independent contractor, and 3 of the people I do a lot of work for, 2 used to be blackberry users and switched to an iphone, the other went from WinMo to an iphone. Although they are just owners of small businesses, I'm sure large corporations are more needy of blackberry and winmo.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Woah... the comment this was a reply to disappeared... I feel like I'm in War of the Worlds and everyone's getting zapped around me.
The iPhone OS is here to stay, that's for sure. Android is the only modern smartphone operating system that is hardware- and vendor-independent, so I think it will stay, too. Microsoft certainly won't let WinMo die, either, even if nobody will use it anymore.
WebOS is dependent on Palm's success. However, if Palm should fail, I could image that parts of WebOS would be integrated into Android. After all, both are based on Linux. I don't expect WebOS to be a failure, though.
Blackberry is still very important in the business market. But from what I have heard, it has fallen behind a bit feature-wise. In the consumer market I see no advantages for it over its competitors. I could image that RIM would switch to Android and port its unique features. Doesn't seem very likely, though.
Symbian ... I kinda like Symbian, since it was one of the first smartphone operating systems. I don't see the use in two OSS smartphone operating systems, though. Android is already there where Nokia wants Symbian to be. They should drop it and switch to Android, now would be the best time to do so. But Nokia believes to be market leader and seems to care about Symbian, so maybe they need to lose significant market share first to realize this.
But that are just my 2¢, I'm on the safe side with iPhone OS anyway.
The iPhone OS is here to stay, that's for sure.
i dont think you were vague enough...please try harder. no wait..lol I'd rather hear how you draw that conclusion
How do I draw that conclusion? I don't know, maybe because of the market share, sold units, unrivaled success of the App Store? Maybe because 2 years after Apple's entry in the smartphone market, every single competitor is tailing Apple? I'd say that right now, iPhone OS has the most prosperous future.