or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Piper Jaffray on Google's Android, Apple, and the iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Piper Jaffray on Google's Android, Apple, and the iPhone

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
I think Android could be good for Apple & the iPhone. It'll give Apple something to beat in the short term, and it'll given them competition in the long term. Of course, its entirely likely the whole idea will flop, like many other mobile linux platforms have.

Edit: My post was after Kasper's Slave's...
post #2 of 13
Sure it remains to be seen if this open source will bear fruit and if it will even be as user friendly as Apple's offering. But could this effectively kill Apple's key advantage, namely software?
post #3 of 13
Google's announcement of Android and the Open Handset Alliance on Monday will offer mobile phone makers access to many technologies already prevalent on the iPhone, and therefore there's little need for Apple to join the effort, says investment bank Piper Jaffray.

"We believe that Android will give many phone makers their first access to software with full web browsing functionality, which the iPhone already offers," analyst Gene Munster advised clients in a research note. "Simply put, in our opinion, Apple is confident that its iPhone operating system is a compelling one, and developers will want to build applications for the iPhone."

Munster noted, however, that Google's strategy for its mobile platform is an open one, offering handset makers and wireless carriers freedom to modify their respective products, where as Apple's strategy involves a closed system in which the company controls the features and applications that can be added to the iPhone.

Still, both companies will introduce software developers kits (SDKs) for their respective mobile platforms in the near term, with Google promising one for Android next week and Apple having committed to release one for the iPhone by February.

In his note to clients, Munster also affirmed his belief that Google is not presently interested in introducing its own mobile phone hardware and would rather see its Android platform adopted on hundreds of handsets from a broad number of manufacturers.

"[I]f the platform successfully proliferates to many devices and form factors, we do not believe Google will develop a mobile phone (hardware) product," he wrote. "If the platform does not successfully proliferate, then Google may be forced to release a handset that exemplifies and displays the power of Android."
post #4 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by satchmo View Post

Sure it remains to be seen if this open source will bear fruit and if it will even be as user friendly as Apple's offering. But could this effectively kill Apple's key advantage, namely software?

Contrary to what others have said, I've always believed that Apple would come out with a decent SDK for the iPhone, once they were sure they had the phone side of it down properly.

I believe that they had the SDK idea right from the beginning.

So, Android will not have anything over the iPhone, and in fact, has a lot of proving to do before it is widely accepted.

The iPhone however is already proving it is a decent phone, and music device. When the SDK comes out, I predict that it will also prove itself to be the perfect Person Digital Lifestyle Device.

As the report said, Android is good for the consumer, but will not be a problem to Apple.

IMHO.
post #5 of 13
Judging by the response to Apple's original lack of SDK, this is likely to be a popular move with developers but will real consumers be as keen? Another chance to see if design triumphs over choice as it has done with iPod and seems to be with iPhone.

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

Another chance to see if design triumphs over choice as it has done with iPod and seems to be with iPhone.

McD

Fantastic post.
post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 
Google aren't well known for creating simple UIs. Some of their designs have been awful. That said, they're better than Microsoft. They also aren't good at getting the 'premium' look that Apple are so good at. Their designs tend to look clean, but cheap...
post #8 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by eAi View Post

Google aren't well known for creating simple UIs. Some of their designs have been awful. That said, they're better than Microsoft. They also aren't good at getting the 'premium' look that Apple are so good at. Their designs tend to look clean, but cheap...

Other than for Search, I am not sure where Google has changed the landscape in a significant way.

By 'significant,' I mean something that is an invention that created a new space, or an innovation has blown away an existing space, or even bring an interesting new twist to a well-worn space.
post #9 of 13
I think this model will work for both Google (open) and Apple (closed). Why? because, They both are very smart and innovative companies and both implement their ideas differently. Google's always been about simplicity and fast (noun). Look at Google.com and their other apps they have made. Always simple but very effective; while Apple's is about simplicity and design both in one package. Design always costs more. I feel there is room for both models here.
post #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofear1az View Post

I think this model will work for both Google (open) and Apple (closed). Why? because, They both are very smart and innovative companies and both implement their ideas differently. Google's always been about simplicity and fast (noun). Look at Google.com and their other apps they have made. Always simple but very effective; while Apple's is about simplicity and design both in one package. Design always costs more. I feel there is room for both models here.

But the thing about Google web services is that they don't have to do that much, in and of themselves. Yeah, search is pretty straightforward, but Google has never had to figure out how to move seamlessly from search to maps to Picasa and back, and make it all feel part of a whole.

And even within those basic parameters, the interfaces aren't anything to write home about. Go click on "advanced search" on the Google page and you get the basic Google style: everything they thought you could use, put in columns on a page, with pretty much zero style or elegance.

Is that "simple"? Only in the sense that a textbook is simple, that is, utterly unadorned with any thought towards actually enjoyment or ease of use. I think the Google style could charitably be called "Stalinist"-- none of that decadent "fun" for them.

I don't think this is the flip side to Apple's "stylish, but expensive" coin. There are already plenty of free phones with grimly spartan UIs, and they're really hard to use. Not caring about design doesn't automatically mean "pragmatic". It can also mean "not a very good user experience".

Of course, that's why they acquired Android-- to get some people in-house who have actually done UI stuff-- but as I have mentioned elsewhere, that apparently means Andy Rubin, who has never had a particularly successful product, despite many years of trying.

Honestly, reading over some of the responses around the web (and on other threads here), I'm mystified as to why the idea of Google doing an OS has some people all lit up. They have never made anything that suggests they are good at this. Not one thing.

Does their track record in the area they propose to revolutionize not mean anything at all? Is there just something about "Google-ness" that somehow imparts magic? Because I'm definitely not seeing it.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #11 of 13
They clearly have been working on it:

http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/mobile/mail/index.html

A site that has been down [all content no longer accessible], oddly enough, is Keith Ohlfs site: http://www.ohlfs.com

From the source view it looks as if he's using:

https://www.google.com/a/ohlfs.com/S...t&ltmplcache=2

Nothing on Pixelsight is happening.

He has long since been free from Microsoft.

Who knows if Google is trying to offer him a lucrative job or not.

If that were the case, then Google would immediately have a compelling UI.

The father of NeXTSTEP knows UI design.

He would be working for Apple if he hadn't been tied up with Microsoft and WebTV during the corporate merger with NeXT.

I have often wondered how OS X would have evolved with him being in charge.

What Ivy gets credit for in Industrial Design I know UI Design would have taken many leaps forward with Keith designing and steering the ship.
post #12 of 13
this android project sounds the the european union. everybody will want to have a say in it, there will be endless discussions, bickering , turf wars and in the end they will come up with a product that satisfies the bonehead telcom managers but not the consumer.
post #13 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by palex9 View Post

this android project sounds the the european union. everybody will want to have a say in it, there will be endless discussions, bickering , turf wars and in the end they will come up with a product that satisfies the bonehead telcom managers but not the consumer.

I agree -- least common denominator.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Piper Jaffray on Google's Android, Apple, and the iPhone