Steve Jobs' supposed rant
about the fragmented Android market has created a lot of buzz - but not
much thought.
His comments serve two purposes: They shed light on some of Apple's
own thoughts back when it reviewed how to launch into the market. Apple
has limitations that forced it to focus on only a few products. The
other value at a quarterly conference call is to tell investors that
Apple made the right choice when it picked its strategy.
Aside from giving investors confidence, questions are now raised
about the direction of the Android market. Sure, it looks hot
today - so does Apple - but which way will it head? Will the
Android become the many-headed hydra that Apple can't beat, or is it a
mob that will eventually fall apart?
Kingpin, Good Ol' Boys, Chaos
The direction of Android is today clearly
controlled by Google. Handset manufacturer join the Open Handset
Alliance (OHA) in order to sell Android phones. While Google really
controls Android, they allow broad changes and limitations to be made
by the handset manufacture or cellular provider.
We have Google as the Kingpin. As the Kingpin, it wants Android to
grow, but Google doesn't sell handsets (it tried), doesn't run a
cellular network, and for the most part doesn't sell apps. Google makes
money from mobile ads, and other OHA members may contribute
financially, but details are unavailable to know if that happens.
For Android to compete with iOS, money needs to be spent on
development. The only source of revenue is Google and mobile ads.
Google's ability to invest in Android will be limited to the profits
from mobile ads. Google
recently stated that it is earning $1 billion a year from mobile
ads. Clearly there is money to pay for development, but ads - not
phones - are Google's focus.
The OHA serves Google in another way to control what is allowed on
handsets when a Google service is at risk. Just ask the folks at
Skyhook if Google didn't step in to
screw up their business deal with Motorola. Google can easily claim
that using another service will affect the performance of Android. That
either means the software is very limited in how much it can be
customized, or Google just wants to keep its revenue streams open.
Guess which one I believe is true.
Herding Cats
On the fringe of implementation, there is a certain degree of chaos.
Here is a
sample support thread regarding Android. A Samsung Galaxy S owner
from T-Mobile couldn't do the same things that a Verizon owner can with
the same phone and operating system version. Since Google doesn't give
a damn about the phone, except for how well the mobile ads are working,
it is happy to let the cellular or handset people create all kinds of
inconsistencies.
Summary: We have a mobile operating system being developed by a
company that sells ads. It then allows full customization by vendors
as long as it doesn't interfere with Google's services that are tied
to the operating system. Finally, the handset and cellular people
want to distinguish their phones from the competition and limit the
phones as they see fit (usually to protect their own services, just as
Google does).
While many people can pretend that the many-headed beast led by
Google will make the Android great, it is easy to see Jobs' point of
view that too many cooks will spoil the soup. The truth is that Android
phones will continue to sell well, but that doesn't change Apple's
strategy.
Apple's Strategy: Unity with Diversity, not Division
When Apple entered the market, people laughed that at the thought
that it would ever sell 10 million phones a year. It now sells 14
million iPhones a quarter, not to mention its strong iPod touch and
iPad sales, which use the same operating system as the iPhone.
Apple is fighting for market share. Whether it gains market share
from Nokia, RIM, or a herd of Android phones, it is going to continue
growing and earning money hand over fist.
The herd of Android phones has its own challenge to face: The more
each OHA member makes its own implementation different, the more
fractured the Android market becomes. People can say all they want
about choice, but here in America the fact is e pluribus
unum. They need to work together and not just rely on
Google.
Apple clearly has a product strong enough to outdo a disjointed
effort.
The funny thing is that Steve Jobs has thrown it in Google's face
that Microsoft did a better job working with multiple sources to get
Windows working identically on a much wider variety of hardware.
In other words, Google sucks more than Microsoft. And for the people
at Google, that has got to sting.
