The Google Phone: A Threat to the iPhone
From what i've read about the information released on the Google Phone, it seems like a possible threat to the iPhone. One of the major reasons is because it's based on a linux platform so it can have programs written on it, which was actually one of Googles intentions.
The iPhone on the other hand is very non compatible, in that you have to hack it and break the warranty to be able to make it better.
I believe that the google phone will be pretty awesome. I have no idea what it looks like, but i'm sure it'll be very beautiful, mabye even more beautiful than it's apple competitor. In my opinion, it will probably possess a web browser, possibly opera, and for an instant messaging client it will mot probably use google talk.
This is what i have to say about the Google Phone. Discuss.
The iPhone on the other hand is very non compatible, in that you have to hack it and break the warranty to be able to make it better.
I believe that the google phone will be pretty awesome. I have no idea what it looks like, but i'm sure it'll be very beautiful, mabye even more beautiful than it's apple competitor. In my opinion, it will probably possess a web browser, possibly opera, and for an instant messaging client it will mot probably use google talk.
This is what i have to say about the Google Phone. Discuss.
Comments
But the iPhone has a huge lead right now. It has tight hardware and software integration and it has a pretty nifty browser in safari. I think that a major battle is brewing between browsers made for hand held devices. In one corner will be safari in the other will be the mozilla variant.
Right now I think most advantages lie with the iPhone. If Apple open it up to 3rd party apps in a meaningful way I think the gPhone's only advantage will be that it comes on cheap or free phones subsidized by carriers. In the end they may go after different consumers.
So it *is* potential threat to Symbian and it is a threat to Microsoft's Mobile OS.
But the iPhone isn't just an OS - its closely coupled to a number of hardware innovations which make it unique. iPhone has an ultra-high tech hardware spec. Android does not.
Assume that Android's software were equivalent to the mobile OSX. (Which I doubt)
Remove the large screen, remove multi-touch, slow down the CPU - and you'd have a much less compelling device.
There's an argument that the open nature of Android will be better.
It may be better for developers - but might be worse for users. Promiscuous installers of cheap native-code software will quickly discover how it burns batteries and reduces the reliability of their phones.
I hope Google do succeed. But think it may make Apple's lead even clearer.
C.
On the other hand, given the amount of pre-announcement hype, it was a rather huge disappointment. No product announcement (not even planned), multiple companies working on the platform is often disastrous (e.g., slower pace), and it just reeks of anti-Microsoft scent (open source mobile platform rather than closed source).
I am actually rooting for Android. Increased competition will drive Apple and others to work harder.
Agreed on both counts, Filburt.
1. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's recent capitulation on opening the iPhone to 3rd-party devs was driven by concern that Android would overcome iPhone functionality-wise due to the legions of linux developers who will jump on it.
2. Agreed that multi-corp paradigm will slow dev. But on the other hand, the open-source OS will likely lead to better security over time as many sharp coding eyes scan the code for vulnerabilities.
Will be interesting to see how the market evolves and what timeframe Android matures over. In the meantime, anything that encourages Apple to open iPhone to 3rd-party dev is a bonus, imo. Security is an issue, but breadth of functionality is what will make or break the iPhone over the next 5 years.
The idea is to have a free, universal OS for phones, rather than the current mix of lame, closed, non-free alternatives that currently make up cellphone OSes. By 'lame' I'm referring to Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm, etc.
I don't see how Android can possibly be a bad thing for consumers. And if there's no demand for it, it will fade away. But I think there's tremendous demand for Android, especially moving forward. Think tons of smart apps for your phone.
I don't see how Android can possibly be a bad thing for consumers. And if there's no demand for it, it will fade away. But I think there's tremendous demand for Android, especially moving forward. Think tons of smart apps for your phone.
Have you ever seen a Windows user's system tray? Especially a non-expert user. Over the months these fill-up with unwanted and unreliable applications. Each of them sitting there, consuming resources. Slowly rendering the machine less reliable or worse. Typical phone users, with access to "tons of smart apps" might be tempted to install tons of them.
In a phone, Java apps sit in a virtual machine which is weak and ring-fenced, but fully-blown native code applications have more power and that means more power to do harm.
Without a some formal (Google) software vetting process, your Android phone will end-up filled with resource-hungry, conflicting applications which will be hard to track down and clean-up.
And open or not, your typical mobile-phone buyer will not be looking to SSH into the phone to identify the culprit. They'll toss the phone when it starts dialing premium rate numbers without their knowledge.
C.