The reason that Microsoft/Windows has such a dominant market share has nothing to do with how 'open' the PC market is—it is due to the historical predominance of Microsoft DOS which is related to the fact that IBM was the first company that sold 'Personal' Computers into businesses. In the 1970's virtually no individuals had computers of their own, and the vast majority of people who had used a computer were exposed to it at work.<p>As businesses purchased IBM PCs instead of terminals for large IBM mainframes or minis, more and more people were exposed to computers. Apple was selling computers into a very different market—they were serving computer 'enthusiasts', in the 1970's that was a very limited group akin to those people who build thier own sailboats or airplanes. IBM was exposing a much larger and more homogenous group of people to computers—people with jobs ;-)<p>As computers became more mainstream over the years there were just more people who had used and were familiar with 'PCs' running MS-DOS, which eventually transitioned into Windows. The Microsoft piece of the personal-computer market has ALWAYS been bigger in the modern era, because it was the easy choice—people used it at work, bought it for home, and were comfortable recommending the same approach for their friends and co-workers.<p>Mobile devices such as smartphones are VERY 'personal'. With the possible exception of the BlackBerry, which will have been imposed on a lot of people through their jobs (as the PC/MS combo was in the 70's and 80's) people are free to choose whatever they want for their device. The majority of the market will not choose a smartphone based on whether or not the OS is 'open' or 'closed'—they will very likely not understand the distinction.<p>Apple understands that users will not be interested in apportioning blame between the hardware manufacturer, the OS provider and the applications developers. AT&T probably understands this too, and so will other carriers. If/when Android develops any of the little <i>issues</i> that are very common with applications written for other 'open' platforms, those issues will reflect poorly on all parties involved.<p>The public at large will not understand and accept the compromises in applications that those of us in the "blogosphere" take for granted They will not keep coming back to try an application through 25 "point" releases until it is finally/potentially better and more robust than any 'closed-OS' alternative - they will give up on it.<p>Customers will choose smartphones based on how USABLE they are, how many useful and easy-to-use features they have, how reliable they are, and how 'cool' they are. Unfortunately, Android and any other completely 'open' OS is likely to have more buggy applications and security issues than a semi-monitored 'closed' system like the iPhone OS. I do not think Android will ever be a major player in the smartphone space unless/until they modify their definition of 'open' to allow some method for 'vetting' of applications.
The iPhone has the best browser available for a smartphone... and if you have a browser you can do pretty much anything.<p>What is the lure going to be for people to stop moving to webapps, and suddenly embrace an open platform and installable apps?<p>The web, through a browser, is the best open platform IMHO
I don't think you can generalize the PC's lead over Mac to say that Android will eventually overtake.<p>First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market leader in certain market segments.<p>Those markets have always been dominated by Mac.<p>The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you say the same about cellphones?<p>It seems to me that cellphones are much more narrowly defined and used. Some are fashion accessories, some like the Blackberry are like a communication utility.<p>But none are a generic computing device, and I don't think they'll ever be. So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny thingy.<p>You could even say that with Vista's DRM, even the PC is heading that way, where the open platform will eventually be relegated to a niche enthusiast market.<p>People like us will pay a premium to get a PC as open as one anyone can by today.
Google could end this now with a nationwide wimax buildout. Build a skype-like voice protocol on the android stack, open source a reference hardware design, and let programmers planetwide innovate on the platform. Would fell the iphone and every other carrier within a year or two.
It's comments like this:<p>"And there’s the Shuffle, which I’m not really sure if anyone ever purchases, but maybe it’s just for people who are too poor to buy the Nano and only own 3 CDs because most of their collection is still on 8-track."<p>That make me dislike Matt - there's just something about the tone of that statement.
i don't get it<p>Symbian has a 70% of the market. Why is Android suddenly so important?<p>sorry but as much I like Google I don't want them running the O/S on my phone.