SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the if-Google-won-did-we-the-people-lose? dept.
Android is 10 years old this week. In part one of a larger story, The Register looks at the beginnings of Android, including some early competition, and a brief comparison to Microsoft.
Google was in the game, at a time when others didn't realize what the game was. Or did, and couldn't turn the ship around fast enough. Android succeeded because it was just about good enough, and its parent was prepared to cross subsidize it hugely. Android wasn't brilliant, but it was better than Bada, and uglier than WebOS. Symbian simply wasn't competitive. If you were a Samsung or Sony or HTC, then Android gave you what you needed, it gave users a better experience. Developers were happy writing for a Java OS, it was a doddle after writing for WM and Symbian.
[...] Motorola also had a significant part to play in Android's success . . . as did Verizon. Carriers like Verizon had been snubbed by Apple's carrier exclusive strategy, and Verizon was badly burned by the BlackBerry Storm. It went all in.
[...] Android is far bigger and far more invasive than a PC could ever be. Google's dominance over our personal lives is far greater than Microsoft's ever was. The clunky laptop in the corner did not track your every movement or read your emails.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DBCubix on Tuesday November 14 2017, @01:45PM (5 children)
They opened it up to other companies to license, customize and make it their own and in effect have a type of ownership. This strategy works and is an effective counterbalance to how Apple locks their systems in.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:09PM (1 child)
The other half of the story of the success of the IBM PC is that developers were free to program the damn thing as they saw fit; even a proprietary operating system like Windows allowed programmers to do just about anything they wanted.
So, while the Big Players have the ability to construct custom hardware to run Android, the software world is woefully constrained. As the other AC put it: You've got to break into your own computer to use it the way you want.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday November 14 2017, @04:48PM
Much agree. When I needed a personal computer, I knew that the Macintosh, with its very usable interface, was coming out real soon, and I wanted to wait for it. But I needed a computer *then*, not a few months from then. So I ended up with a PC instead. When the Mac finally came out, I was relieved at my hurried purchase, because the Mac was not user-programmable at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:15PM
Plus it was the cheapest smartphone.
It's not rocket science.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:54PM (1 child)
Android appealed at all levels to all participants.
* For end users, it was a smartphone that was available in all price ranges, features, colors, styles, manufacturers, mobile networks, etc.
* A killer feature of Android was that you could customize the phone to the N-th degree. Rather than Apple's way, or no way.
* For OEM hardware manufacturers, it was an OS that they could easily license in order to sell tons of new and pricier hardware.
* For mobile network operators (other than AT&T) it was a smartphone they could sell because iPhone wasn't available to them.
* For App developers it was an alternative to iPhone. An Android app would run on all manufacturers hardware, on all mobile networks.
* As an app developer, you could sell your app in multiple app stores. Not just Google's Play store. But Amazon's Android app store on Amazon's ecosystem. There was also the hint that other Android ecosystems could emerge (without Google's core apps) because Android was open source. Alas, Google started moving more of the best parts of Android out of the OS and into "Play Services" app which was exclusive to Google. But until this point, it was yet another major attractive facet of Android for developers, developers, developers.
* For developers, you didn't have to pay $99 / year to develop. You didn't invest in your app only to hope and pray that Apple doesn't reject your app from the store for arbitrary non-uniformly enforced reasons, or no reason at all. Or because Apple liked your idea and decided to build their own and kick you out. You could download the Android SDK, and download Eclipse, and download the Android plug in for Eclipse -- all for free, and on any platform (Linux, Windows, Mac OS) and start developing without anyone's permission. For iPhone you had to use Apple's tools, on Apple's OS, on Apple's hardware and pay handsomely for the privilege and hope your app was approved. On Android, you didn't need anyone's permission to merely put your compiled app onto a real phone. Just USB cable the phone to your computer, enable the right permission from the phone's settings, and your development tools could then install your app on the phone with every edit / compile / debug cycle.
What was not to like?
And Android was programmed in Java. Not some obscure language. The vast majority of the Java ecosystem of libraries was usable. And Android was Linux. You could build an Android app that was a "console terminal" and get an actual Linux prompt from the phone's Linux. Or get an actual Linux prompt (from the phone's Linux) through the ADB tools on your computer. I remember one time I was showing my friend that I could use a terminal on my netbook, connected to my phone, and run the "top" command. While we were watching "top", my phone rang. Leaving the USB cable connected, I took the call, as top continued to run, my friend was impressed. :-)
Android's "intents" was a killer feature. It enabled core elements of the system to be replaced by third parties. Something Apple could not do. Third parties could provide alternative replacement keyboards -- and you could switch keyboards on the fly. Alternate browsers -- and the end user could select which browser they wanted to use or be the default. Or alternate email apps. Or alternate dialer apps. Alternate "desktop" launcher apps that gave the phone a different "personality".
Apple started playing catch up. I remember one year when Steve Jobs bashed the idea that anyone wanted to be using multiple apps on a phone at one time and switch between them. Or background apps. To cheering throngs of Apple fanboys.
Next year, Steve Jobs introduced iPhone having background apps. Again to cheering throngs of fanboys. But it was inferior. The pop up badges.
Next year, Steve Jobs introduced an imitation of Android's notification system to make background apps work better.
Then year after year, it was lots of playing catch up.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:38PM
And yet MSM will keep talking up iPhone, because they are in bed with Apple by way of having standardized on Mac for their publishing pipeline...