"The iPhone is heralded as the most revolutionary mobile phone in human history, but the cold and harsh truth is that for all the cheering and punditry, the iPhone's impact on the world is negligible."<p>Don't care for Android vs. iPhone arguments but lets at least admit that iPhone was a significant catalyst that moved forward the smartphone movement initially at the least. Androids would probably still exist if Apple never put out the iPhone but the iPhone has certainly been one of the biggest influences on Android's development not to mention the entire mobile industry. In that regard I see the author's statement as pretty narrow. Its like saying Unix had no impact on computing because Microsoft had the lion's share.
<i>For the first time, a smartphone operating system is going to impact more than rich people in the US and Europe, and that is pretty darn revolutionary.</i><p>Simply and powerfully put. As third-world countries come online they are going to be starting and staying with the mobile web. You can already see this at work in a number of African countries where mobile payments have proliferated and matured at an astonishing rate. That is just an early signal of the tectonic shift occurring.
This is an interesting take on the long view of the smartphone market. I think the linked google plus comment is more insightful than the article itself, if you skipped it the first time go back and give it a read.<p>Apple is building a luxury device.
Google is turning what was once luxury into a commodity.<p>It makes sense too. The difference in revenue streams boils down to, Apple makes cash from the upgrade train, Google makes cash when people use the web. Getting the web in everyones hands is a plus for google, but a huge plus for humankind. I'm glad that their interests so closely line up with the big picture in this situation.<p>Not specific to phones, I just love it when things get commoditized. It means that the next round of new and exciting things built upon it can finally gain some steam.
It is interesting to note that the term "Open Source" was coined as a counterpart/in opposition to "Free Software" by those who were interested in sharing code but who did not ascribe to some of the more extreme aspects of Stallman's philosophy. It is interesting, because really, what has Android being "Open Source" really done? Are customers less beholden to telecoms for their devices? Have prices dropped or competition increased? What percent of Android device owners have compiled their own kernel? Have read the Android source?<p>> In ten to fifteen years' time, we will look back and regard Android as the technology that enabled even the poorest people in this world to have access to the web (and thus, knowledge), just like we regard Nokia as the company that put the mobile phone in every corner of the globe.<p>...and just like we regard Microsoft as the company that put computers into every home.
For the author revolutionary seems to mean "reaches the most people". My definition is closer to "radically new or innovative".<p>The iPhone drastically redefined the smartphone market including the competitors that followed it. Hard for me to swallow that its effect on the world has been negligible.
I think the iPhone set the bar for user experience and helped pull everybody out of the dark ages of jamming scaled-down desktop experiences on a tiny screen.<p>I really agree with the post though. One day enough people with time on their hands will be able to adapt Android to all sorts of cheap hardware which might scale greatly for the developing world.
I was unfortunate enough to own one of the first Android devices, the HTC Magic (aka MyTouch3G). This was prior to, and also one of the first victims of, Android fragmentation. The process of discovering who was responsible for updates was the least open and opaque process I could have imagined. I had to resort to seeking out the information from other users on the Vodafone forum to discover that basically, no one actually cared. I had already bought the device so HTC had their money and didn't care, I was signed up to a 2 year contract so Vodafone had their money and didn't care, and Google got to license the phone as a Google Experience one, selling their app suite as well as me using their services. Google maybe cared a little, but they do not provide support or after care really unless talking to a perl script counts as support.<p>The underlying OS might be revolutionary in some ways, but the update process (at least the one sanctioned by Google) is so far away from revolutionary I find it hard to fathom the Android Reality Distortion Field I sometimes hear about this. It sucks. It gives the user next to no after care, it is all about the upfront purchase to the handset maker, the vampire like carrier fees, and the services provided by Google including all the advertising on the devices. I think people are evangelising this beyond what is rational.
Sure, Rubin's definition of open ("mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make") would still apply today without the iPhone but let's be real: Android, without the iPhone, would at best be a Blackberry clone. One could argue the market would have ignored it because it would have offered very little new. It had wide adoption among hardware manufacturers were desperate because they needed to compete against the iPhone. Would the same have been true if they were still competing against Blackberry, a Blackberry clone and whatever Microsoft would eventually come out with?<p>Android is what it is today because of Apple and the iPhone.
can we please stop responding to MG Seigler? I don't read his blog so i don't know if he actually does post intelligent thought sometimes, but every single thing the blogs have picked up from him is pure fanboy trollbait.
Here in Vietnam where the yearly average income is still under $2000 USD <i>everybody</i> wants an iPhone. Perfectly capable Android phones are widely available but the iPhone is the public status signal everybody is chasing. Maybe this is a cultural thing but if people in other developing countries are similarly willing to buy such an extravagantly expensive device just to keep up with the Joneses next door the value proposition of cheaper Android phones may not be so strong. By all accounts Apple still has a lot of room to cut prices but stay in the black too.
Smartphone-proliferation requires a strong network capable of moving bytes in much larger scale than currently feasible or economical in most 3rd world networks. Hell, many 1st world countries struggle with growing data.<p>The OS of the phone is much irrelevant (Windows, linux, meego, webos etc. are "cheap and good enough" if you really have the demand of billion such devices. Having open source OS helps, but I'd say it's more about who can sell the network cheap enough to suit the smartphones.
People keep fixating on the fact that Android is not Free Software. It doesn't matter.<p>Android is giving us the option to use an open source OS on arbitrary commoditized hardware without paying any license fees or asking anyone for permission. The Android OS can and has been ported to all manner of devices without any first-party support.<p>When the only other comparably advanced mobile OS is totally proprietary AND only available on proprietary hardware made by the OS manufacturer, the existence of Android is a massive leap forward for openness and choice.<p>iOS is great, I love it. But it will be forever locked to Apple's hardware, and you will only ever have access to that technology in the forms that make good business sense for Apple. That is not true of Android.
I disagree with most of the article, but the one point I'll make regard his comments about the iPhone being for rich people/countries.<p>First, I have to assume he's talking about contract prices, because the cheapest Android devices are a little under $250 off-contract, which is cost-prohibitive for "non-rich"countries.<p>So, how is this valid, when I can get an iPhone 3GS for free (on contract) and an iPhone 4 for $99? This is on close price parity with Android devices -- from the free/cheap prepaid LG Optimus Android devices to the Galaxy Nexus.<p>Edit: If you're going to downvote this into oblivion, at least do me the favor of explaining where my thinking is incorrect?
My major take away from the MG Sieler post was that Rubin deleted a tweeted, which makes it look like he's trying to hide something, regardless of the true reason for deleting it. Why does he need to delete a tweet that whose commands no longer work? A tweet is a point in time snapshot that represents a thought or opinion at a certain point in time. They aren't wikis that need to be constantly updated and maintained. If someone tried the command and it didn't work, they could always search for the up to date instructions. I'm not sure how this became a platform flame war.
Maybe webOS will have its chance to play the same role. Android is getting hit hard by the patent wars. webOS is soon to be open, has a strong community of tinkerers already, and to develop for it all you need to know are HTML/CSS/JS - much like developing for the mobile web. If HP plays their cards right, and Android as a platform is enervated enough by the companies that have an interest in it muddling it up with suits and countersuits, perhaps webOS will get its chance to shine.
"I'm even more excited about seeing a $25 mobile device that has access to a killer web browser and endless mobile apps, and watching that device appear in the hands of a billion school children over the next 10 years."<p>I would be excited to see that too. Can anyone point me towards such a device?<p>"What Nokia did for the mobile phone, Android is doing for the smartphone."<p>I don't see how, because Nokia is a hardware manufacturer who actually makes phones, and Android is just an operating system. It seems to me the hard part of getting to the $25 unlocked price point is the hardware, not the OS. Android is not even the only open-source phone operating system--how about Meego, created by (aptly) Nokia, and hosted by the nonprofit Linux Foundation?<p>Android is a cool product, but I have a hard time swallowing the self-congratulatory posturing. So far Android has not done a single thing for the 3rd world poor. As far as I can tell, so far all it has done is provided the skeleton for a bunch of proprietary implementations by first-world hardware manufacturers and mobile operators.
What I very much appreciate is that the article, rightly, gives credit to Nokia for proliferation of mobiles in developing world. I'm from India and I still remember my first phone was Nokia 3310 in 2002. I'm sure Nokia did it for the profit but that doesn't change the fact that I became loyal to nokia for making quality product and helping me better my life.<p>The same thing will happen to android, I hope. Nokia provided excellent hardware for me and Android will provide excellent software for the younger generation of India, Africa etc. And that is the point of the post.<p>Sure, Apple provided a huge boost to smartphones and industry will be indebted to Apple. But, as I'm indebted to Nokia not the company that boosted the mobile phones, future generations will be indebted to Android and not to Apple that boosted the smartphone market.
I think the wrangling over Apple's sold/shipped devices is a little over the top - unlike some of the unreliable figures released for adroid tablets, for example, I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that Apple doesn't sell the large majority of the devices it ships.
I'm not seeing why this is rated so highly, its just some android blogger making snarky comments about an iOS blogger and reposting a bunch of hyperbole from a google+ comment.
"I'm even more excited about seeing a $25 mobile device that has access to a killer web browser and endless mobile apps, and watching that device appear in the hands of a billion school children over the next 10 years."<p>All those billion kids who did got Android or Blackberry instead of iPhone for Christmas are currently crying over Twitter about how they hate their parents...
I still don't see what makes it revolutionary, I'm not sure what price point an android capable handset adresses that a 3GS doesn't. There is honestly very little difference on pricing, if you can afford a droid you can afford a 3GS or 4. It's a few percent difference not a an order of magnitude. Beating a competitors price by a few dollars is hardly what I'd call a revolution. iOS is just as accessible to starving African children as android. What matters far more than a few dollars for a phone is the kleptocratic governance in those countries. A real revolution would be governance open to doing business and enriching the populace.
Thank you for cutting through the bullshit. Especially in developing (not fully industrialized) economies, the power of the web on everyone's phone will change our world.
Why couldn't they have used the Inferno OS for their VM?<p>Code reuse at Google is huge.<p>So what were their reasons for not choosing it?<p>Apologies if this has been asked and answered.
You can talk up your favorite team, principle or country without a point by point attack on your rivals. Apple has had some great successes and failures that open source can learn from and can stand on their shoulders to make an even better product. Characterizing Apple and Jobs as some one dimensional boogy man doent really contribute to growth. No need for flame ware rehash.<p>tl;dr Dont waste your time on this article.
I can already see how much of this thread is going to play out. Before we get into a fight about whether Android is "open" enough or not, can we defer to the thread about Macro's post? There have already been dozens of comments about the subject today.
Re-edit: I am annoyed that this device is so buggy, and am getting rid of it. Google, please provide better testing for your revolutionary devices so I don't have to suffer through endless crashing and freezing up of stock apps.<p>I would agree with the whole "This is the new S60" idea, except I don't remember S60 ever being as fragmented and broken as Android is. Also S60 always had priority on the phone and lock functions so even if an app was having problems I could still receive a phone call - please implement this, Android team.