Everyone is constantly bickering about mobile OS share, because everyone loves to argue and propound the virtues of their smartphone/tablet OS du jour..and it's huge business that's also threatening to hollow out the PC market. Some point to total units shipped, market share, profit margins, web usage statistics, and others just flap their uniformed, slack-jawed maws about how a particular feature set makes their favorite mobile OS "better" than the rest...but I have yet to be completely convinced that one piece of hard/software is "better" than another, each has it's strengths/weaknesses:
Apple/iOS - Aesthetically pleasing hardware, decent but closed software ecosystem. Sells a ton and grabs the lions share of the profits
Google/Android/OEMs - Has some features that others don't, sells the OS as a vehicle for their search/advertising business. The OS is fractured and mauled to death by carriers/OEMs.
Microsoft/OEMs - Promising start, fresh take on the mobile OS, but very late to the party. Questionable OEM build quality until Nokia entered the game. WinPhone 8 looks good, but is it enough?
RIM/QNX - They were popular for awhile but missed the consumer boat and kept watching it sail into the horizon, but still have security that other's can't match, stick to the physical keyboard to their detriment. BB10 - will it be enough to save them? Odds are they're purchased by one of the big fish listed above in 3 months.
While I bash on the behavior/products of companies that build mobile software/hardware, I have tried to bash on everyone equally (I'm not totally sure that I have gone on a 'roid rage tear concerning Android/Google yet...but soon will be the winter of their discontent). To quote Gunny from Full Metal Jacket:
"I am hard, you will not like me. But the more you hate me, the more you will learn. I am hard but I am fair...Here you are all equally worthless"
All the manufacturers are trying desperately to win market share from one another, spending gobs and gobs of money on advertising, creating various incentive programs to win over the hearts (wallets) of future and current smartphone/tablet users (as if people will use non-smartphone phones going forward).
Additionally the manufacturers are very much leaning towards vertical integration of their hardware/software, because it allows them to capture all of the profits for their ecosystem, own the supply chain (drive down costs) and get a handle on quality (I'm looking at you most Android phones out there).
I on the other hand of come up with a fool-proof formula to dominate the smartphone/tablet market:
1) Build it beautiful, functional and timeless - basically follow what Dieter Rams espoused in his 10 principles
2) KISS - Goes for the hardware and software
3) Make it sexy - this is the reason why you don't see very many people driving a Gremlin around these days
4) Market it well - if nobody knows about it, nobody will buy it...being a hipster doesn't pay the mortgage
5) Apps - the browser is still important, but apps are as daringfireball put it, the new channels
Ok, I think that's pretty brain-dead easy to figure out...but what if you're an underdog (read RIM/MSFT) and want to take over the market from existing players? I proudly introduce my 'Theory of Lowering the Barrier to Adoption":
The basic premise is that people are afraid of change and get comfortable with the hard/software during the 2 years in which they are under contract (at least in the US), also they are cheap (maybe not iOS users).
People are afraid of change:
The traditional smartphone/tablet layout is a grid of app icons with some sort of tray for your core apps/settings. This setup has easy to use/understand and has been somewhat baked into the societal subconscious for who a smartphone layout should look and feel like. Enter MSFT with the WinPhone 7/8 and Windows 8 metro/live tile look. I appreciate what they're doing, it's a breath of fresh air...but alas it has not seemingly been able to grab people in the way they had hoped...I'm going to say it's the 'scared of change thing' barrier, even though designers seem to like it.
People are cheap
Let's say for the sake of argument that the average smartphone/tablet user will spend anywhere from $25-50 on apps for his her/device during the course of a 2 year contract. At first blush that doesn't appear to be a lot, but to the company that's trying to steal market share it really means $50-100 to successfully get a defection. The user is straight up out $25-50 for their old apps, and another $25-50 to re-purchase the same apps for the new platform, hence the 'people are cheap' barrier.
What manufacturers need to do in order have a prayer to steal market share is this: make the transition to the new OS slightly less jarring and offer an "app amnesty" or "app transfer" program to make sure that people don't have to fork over their hard earned (for some people anyways) cash and buy their apps all over again. I think that MSFT should have pursued this strategy in conjunction with paying developers to write apps for Windows Phone. Google is starting off on the right track with a $25 Play Store credit if you purchase a Nexus 7 - combine this with a $200 price tag (people are cheap) and compare this with the $4/500 iPad and you have the beginnings of a revolution.
The basic math: Good Design + Marketing +Sexy time + Marketing + Apps + warm and fuzzy + cheap = WIN
In pictures for those of you who are tired of reading my diatribe -
My way:
Or the RIM way:
I would describe the difference between Android and Apple as choice.
ReplyDeleteApple is about choosing for you the best hardware,OS, Apps, and feature.
Don't have cut and paste, that's because they've decided you don't need it, until they say you do. Only have one screen size option? That's because they've decided that's the best size, until they decide it should be different.
Android gives the hardware manufacturers, app developers, and ultimately the user choice. Sometimes too much choice, but it's a process. Through sales and customer feedback the consumer chooses the direction of the platform for themselves. Not one size fits all.
I think that if I had to choose between choice (Android) and no choice (Apple), I would go with choice. However, too much choice (fragmentation) and the bastardization of Android by the carriers/OEMs is strangling the platform.
ReplyDelete