The Android Revolution 4 Comments

When Google unveiled their mobile operating system, Android, back in November 2007 alongside their announcement of the Open Handset Alliance they were met with a mix of excitement, surprise and skepticism. The open-source software platform was, after all, just another in the fragmented list of mobile operating systems. And with Google’s history of losing the initial enthusiasm on ambitious projects such as this (*cough*wave*cough*), many feared it wouldn’t turn out to be all they hoped.

Google was—and still is—primarily an advertising company; but over their 12 year history, they have tried out a multitude of ventures. They now have their toes dipped in almost everything a web user does online; operating system (desktop and mobile), web browser, ads, email, social network, microblogging and blogging, instant messaging, search, video, photos, navigation, analytics, documents, web & software development – the list goes on.

Could Google, with their vastly expansive business structure, really focus on a smartphone operating system and deliver the promised goods? With Windows Mobile, Symbian, Blackberry, Palm and the then newly released iPhone, all vying to dominate the smartphone market, could Android carve out a piece of the pie for itself?

The Winds of Change

Fast forward 3 years later to the Google I/O conference held May 19-20 2010 and Android has clocked in four major releases in just the last 12 months. The latest (version 2.2, “Froyo” for ‘frozen yogurt’) was released at the conference, which also saw the unveiling of Google TV and the WebM web video format.

From a buggy, directionless software project, it has transformed into a feature-rich, powerful and open platform for mobile development – exactly the direction originally aimed for. Android now sits near the top of the smartphone operating systems market, whose landscape is starkly different today than what it was when Google acquired Android Inc. in 2005.

Windows Mobile strives to become relevant again, and improvements with version 7 are yet to be seen. Blackberry, despite being the smartphone of choice in the corporate world shows signs of age and is struggling to keep up with the changing times. Palm, having made one last valiant effort with their Pre, eventually succumbed to pressure and were bought out by HP. Symbian has gone open source, but with generally performance has failed to gain much momentum. The iPhone, pioneer in user experience, continues to remain the standard against which all smartphones are measured and ups the ante with each successive release.

With so many options choosing what platform to buy into is a difficult choice for both consumers and developers alike. As the mobile operating system market matures, we see a more philosophical battle break out much as it did in the early days of desktop computing: on the fundamental differences between open and restricted development environments. The opposite extremes can be illustrated by two major contenders, in not only the smartphone business but the tech industry as a whole – Apple and Google, each with its own philosophy and implementation of what it thinks the future of mobile should be.

Philosophical fight-out

Apple’s modus operandi is control over every aspect of the user experience, which results in a fine-tuned and arguably flawless one. Mac, iPod, iPhone and now iPad are all undoubtedly beautiful devices in both form and function; one of the reasons for that is Apple’s control over both hardware and software and the tight integration between the two that allows for. Apple is very good at vertical, concentrated growth and shows as much with how they are handling their lead in the smartphone business with iOS (formerly iPhone OS). However, they suffer from an image problem, at least within the tech industry.

The regular customer may not fret over HTML5 vs Flash video or what the approval process is for the iPhone App Store, but the software developers do – and in this circular world, what developers do will eventually matter to consumers. Apple’s mobile devices have never been able to display Flash content, despite the popularity of the latter as a means of delivering rich media online. The very public thrashing of Adobe over Flash in a letter from Steve Jobs means chances of the two companies working together are slim. Granted, the reasons presented for ditching Flash, performance and closed development environment, are valid.  Apple presents Flash as “closed and buggy,” and it’s hard to argue with that, since Flash is both those things. However, given the ubiquity of Flash in today’s Web, Jobs’ decision seems questionable. But then perhaps a strong-willed message from one of the most influential people in the tech industry is exactly what is needed to push HTML5 further as a viable, open alternative to a closed system. Jobs clearly has an image of what iOS should be, and no third party is allowed to taint the impeccably designed user experience. As a technology writer and software developer I may disagree with this; but if this approach results in a simple, reliable and elegant user experience, I am all for it as a consumer.

Google, on the other hand, seem to be striving for horizontal growth, aiming to become a platform for further innovation rather than just an expanded business. Reminiscent of how Microsoft gained dominance in the desktop war; where Apple focused on building and maintaining a user experience from start to finish, Microsoft were quick to partner with hardware manufacturers and get their operating system on to as many devices as possible. This is exactly what Google seems to be doing with Android, now that their experiment with selling the Nexus One themselves didn’t go as well as planned. What makes this possible is Android’s adaptability. From smartphones to e-readers and even cars, now TVs and maybe even tablet devices, being open source has allowed it to become a possibility for all kinds of hardware manufacturers. According to the latest figures, 100,000 new Android devices are activated each day. It’s on 60 devices made by 21 OEMs, on 59 carriers in 48 countries; and in the first quarter of 2010 Android was the second best selling smartphone OS in the US (after RIM’s Blackberry).

Many critics argue that this shotgun splatter approach, results in a slew of half-baked wannabe devices that end up mimicking the top dog instead of innovating further on their own. This argument hearkens back to the argument of Mac vs PC, where Mac is better because it’s a focused, meticulously orchestrated device whereas PC is a crude experience because it was designed for different types of hardware. In many ways, the discussion of iPhone vs Android is much like that of Mac vs PC – it is a debate over philosophical approaches towards user experience and software development.

The large number of devices adds to one of the biggest problems Android currently has as a platform – that of fragmentation. There are many different devices running Android, each with their screen types and resolutions and different hardware/software capabilities; and because it is open source, cell phone makers like to put their own twist on things by adding their own UI to the software, a la HTC Sense – eventually slowing the update process down. This results in a large number of Android devices each with an uncertain update cycle and no clear direction to the platform. The random distribution of updates doesn’t seem like much of an issue so far, but as more and more devices with Android pop up in the market, it will become a serious issue for consumers and developers alike.

Several of the announcements at the I/O conference went squarely after Apple. They announced their mobile ads strategy and stressed on the fact that they’ve been in the online advertising business for 10 years; they unveiled Google TV, which makes Apple TV seem childish in all its glory; they showed off over-the-internet sync for Android Froyo, with the ability to stream music off your home computer over the internet; and they took every opportunity they had to take a verbal jab at Apple during the keynote.

On the other hand Apple’s Worldwide Developer’s Conference showed once again that Apple will not be going out without a fight. iPhone 4, other than being completely redesigned, is powered by the same A4 chip that powers the iPad and now boasts many of the features that were missing from its ancestors; multitasking, video conferencing, HD video with built in editing, a better camera and screen resolution to name a few.  Steve Jobs said the redesign was the “biggest leap” it had taken since the launch of the first iPhone.

Another detail that emerged was a change in Apple’s iOS development terms that bars developers from using Google’s mobile advertising solution, AdMob. Apple, of course, has its own advertising platform, aptly named iAd.

Let’s recap some of the issues we’ve touched on so far.

The Road Ahead

The problem with Android fragmentation is each software update instantly renders the previous obsolete. At the breakneck speed Google has been iterating versions, manufacturers have no way of keeping up. As a result users are left with old versions of the software and all the new features come to zilch. Android chief Andy Rubin has said the eventual plan is to slow down, and with modularization of the OS, the update process can be made much simpler.

And to put the Flash debate for iPhone in perspective, it can be posited perhaps that all’s well that ends well; for years web and software developers have been trying to work around Flash. Its popularity with online video notwithstanding, Flash has always been accused of being buggy and a hackish solution. Perhaps with someone like Steve Jobs and his iPhone leading the debate for HTML5 video, adoption of a more open and though-out standard can be sped up.

As always the iPhone is the catalyst for innovation in smartphones. In terms of user experience, the iPhone always feels more “complete” and polished; it will undoubtedly influence every other handset maker out there into rapid action. However market dominance comes from innovation and it can be argued that doesn’t readily spring forth from a tied down and inscrutable development environment. There has also been much bad press surrounding Apple – their app store policies, the Flash bashing and let’s not forget the stunning number of suicides at the Chinese factories that make all of Apple’s pretty little gadgets.

Unlike the first iPhone, the new one faces stiffer competition from a slew of devices and its tougher to stand out in a crowded room. Every smart phone maker in the market is out to dethrone the iPhone, and they’re getting better all the time. “These handsets are more than just iPhone clones,” says Adam Leach, principal analyst at Ovum.

The question that remains is whether Apple can continue their lead in the market with each update, or if they are complacent enough in their success as in the 90’s when they lost desktop share to Microsoft, under the same attitude.

Of course, there is no right or wrong in the debate over Android vs. iOS. It all comes down to philosophies, and eventually consumers will decide with their wallets what the market wants. While openness, transparency and willingness to bend to customer will are good qualities in multi-billion dollar organizations whose decisions will impact our future, neither side can be satisfactorily placed under the “good guy” label.

Google and Apple are both stepping on each others’ toes as they look to expand their businesses. Some of the things we are yet to see are how the Flash issue plays out and how Google plans on tackling their fragmentation problems; where Chrome OS fits in this whole picture, and whether Google is expanding too quickly to sustain stability; whether Apple can continue to succeed despite their finicky, policed ecosystem; and of course, what the other smartphone OS makers (RIM, Windows, HP) plan to do in response to all this commotion.

Interesting times ahead is the only prediction I’ll make. Well that, and even more amazing phones.