The Network Garden - Mark Sigal's Blog: Five reasons iPhone vs Android isn't Mac vs Windows (Guest Column @ O'Reilly Radar)

MOST RECENT READS

Michael Pollan: The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
In terms of pure readability, I enjoyed In Defense of Food more, but this book feels more important in how it delineates the 'self-perpetuating' ethos of Big Corn, and what that yields in our society. OD looks at the Industrial Beef industry, organic farms, the industrial-scaling of organic, and the more holistic 'polyface' farms. It does all of this in a way that while not completely neutral, isn't snarky, dismissive and judgmental either. If you care about what you eat and why, this book is an eye-opener.
Kevin Kelly: What Technology Wants
A profound piece of work that looks at evolution in organic systems and expands the schema to technological ones. The book presents a unified theory about how life, systems and logic extend over time and space, and what it all means. This one will stick with me for a long time.
Walter Isaacson: Steve Jobs
I have just begun reading it, and while sad knowing the end for SJ, it puts many a smile on the face, seeing how fascinated my kids are by a man they never knew (but whose products they love), and recollecting the last book that I read on Apple thirteen years ago, 'Apple' by Jim Carlton, which was utterly depressing.
Andy Kessler: Eat People: And Other Unapologetic Rules for Game-Changing Entrepreneurs
I consider Kessler to be one of the better analytical minds out there with an extremely enjoyable, amusing writing style. This book, however, was a case of what should have been a 50 pager stretched into 250. As such, it got to be a tired read, and Kessler loses a bit of credibility when he pushed horizontal as the end-all, be-all while trying to downplay the significance of Apple and Amazon as largely vertically integrated businesses. Plus, while he pushes the defensibility of being a market entrepreneur over a political entrepreneur, his arguments read a bit weak when placed alongside our current political climate where political entrepreneurs (think: Wall Street) are more powerful than ever. A disappointment by an excellent writer.
Chip Heath: Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard
This is a generally enjoyable read, and if I hadn't read so many business and management books over the years I would enjoy this even more. The big knock (for me) on this category is that all of these books have a core metaphor or three that anchor their truth and shape their narrative. Effectively, these things are pneumonic devices, so on some level, the question comes down to how much I will remember of the specifics in 90 days? Probably not so much, although it will definitely reinforce and reinvigorate the stuff that I am already doing.
Frederick P. Brooks: The Design of Design: Essays from a Computer Scientist
Brooks wrote the classic on team development dynamics, 'The Mythical Man-Month' so he is already highly qualified in my book. In particular, this book is affirming a lot of my philosophies on development and design, especially as a proponent of the Spiral Model. I especially like the chunk on Conceptual Integrity in design. Somewhat of a dry read is the only negative, and this is not a book for design newbies, as a lot of the context would be obtuse for this audience.
Bill Simmons: The Book of Basketball: The NBA According to The Sports Guy
First, some caveats. I am both a HUGE basketball fan (go LAKERS!) and an enthusiastic reader on Bill Simmons writings for ESPN.com. This book is funny but long (~700 pages), and even though it's easy to read one chapter at a time, I devoured it in about 10 days. Why? It fits my axiom of great objective approaches to subjective topics. Bill may not be right in all of his assessments, but he is never confused. Very entertaining, and I learned a ton about the evolution of NBA basketball, and methods for comparing players from different eras. Strongly recommended.
Malcolm Gladwell: Outliers: The Story of Success
This was an excellent book, with Gladwell providing a crisp narrative with clear analogs and ample stories to codify his positions on the elements of successful people. As a frame of reference, I LOVED The Tipping Point and most of his New Yorker pieces but found Blink to be a great big MEH.
Stephen Lowenstein: My First Movie: Take Two: Ten Celebrated Directors Talk About Their First Film
I love films, am a (nascent) student of the art of film-making and am knee-deep in the story-telling and entertainment realm, vis-a-vis my iPhone gaming company, Unicorn Labs. Plus, I am blogging/writing more than ever so understand the mechanics of audience, economy of narrative and sacrificing your "children" (i.e., good dialog and written word) to realize that end. As such, very engaged in reading how different directors went from directorial "virgins" to proven auteurs. About 30 pages in, enjoying it a good deal.
Michael Lewis (Author): The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine
I have already read a number of excerpts from Vanity Fair, watched the 60 Minutes segment on this and blogged extensively on the crisis so REALLY looking forward to this. Love Lewis' writing style, save for Blind Side, which couldn't get through.

Last week I presented at Stanford Graduate School of Business in a session on Mobile Computing called, "Creating Mobile Experiences: It's the Platform, Stupid."

As the title underscores, I am a big believer that to understand what makes mobile tick, you really need to look beyond a device's hardware shell (important, though it is), and fully factor in the composite that includes its software and service layers; developer tools and the ecosystem "surround." Successful platforms, after all, are more than the sum of their parts' propositions. They are not simply a bunch of dis-integrated ingredients.

Having built hardware and software platforms since 1994, this thought process has led me to harp endlessly on why the iPhone platform (and its derivatives) is such a game changer. By contrast, I would argue that the long-term success of Android is anything but a given.

It's human nature to look to the past in an attempt to understand the future. As such, I was unsurprised when I was asked during my presentation if Apple and iPhone vs Google and Android in mobile computing is "destined" to play out as Apple and the Mac did when confronted by Microsoft and Windows in the PC wars.

As I have provided "big picture" analysis on this topic before in other posts (here and here), I want to share what I see as the five "little picture" reasons Apple vs Google isn't destined for the same outcome as Apple vs Microsoft:

Read the full post @ O'Reilly Radar by clicking HERE.

Update 1: John Gruber of Daring Fireball gave this piece some loving, saying "Astute analysis from Mark Sigal. Android may well grow to overwhelm the iPhone OS in terms of market share, but if so, it won’t be for the same reasons Windows did on the desktop." He also linked to it as well, which given his massive audience, generated a sizable traffic pop (John is the consummate Apple insider, whose pieces have been cited more than once by senior Apple management, including most recently, Apple CEO Steve Jobs).

Update 2: This piece has generated jaw-dropping comments (~100) and re-tweets (467 and counting), and through the one bit.ly link I have that I can trace, shows almost 6,700 reads, which doesn't even factor direct access to the article (from folks like Gruber, O'Reilly site visitors, Google searches, etc.).

Related Posts:

Comments

Thanks for writing this. I was the one pushing you on this point at Stanford and your analysis is very convincing.

The only doubt I have left is about one thing you mentioned. (roughly paraphrasing) How Microsoft was successful by generating a bunch of 100M companies around its platform and that Apple was doing the same, maybe with 10M dollar companies.

I'd be very weary to invest in or build a business based on a platform where there is a gatekeeper that has the power to yank away all my revenue without notice. Microsoft had a fully open platform and was very careful not to step into too many markets and eliminate competition so as to keep the platform attractive. Apple has been intervening way too much on the App Store for people not to be worried and the value of businesses based on the platform not to be affected.

Posted by: Pedro Côrte-Real | April 28, 2010 at 06:22 PM

Hey Pedro,

Perception is reality, but I don't see the distinction between Microsoft and Apple that you do. Microsoft essentially carved out OS, desktop productivity and server software layers for themselves, and were legendary for playing the embrace, extend extinguish hand when segments looked particularly juicy to them. You don't get Antitrust busted for being a great partner. As to Apple, they have quirks, but I still think:

A) The numbers don't lie. Plenty of developers, lots of Apps and a growing economy.

B) As discussed at the presentation, the real arbiter of the platform's success for developer's selfish interests in whether they grow real businesses, or mom/pop businesses (i.e., the $5-10M v. $100M+).

Relative to B), it's hard to argue that the AdWords/AdSense model of Google's is a more compelling proposition.

Yet, we don't look at Google with a discerning eye; and, unlike Apple, they don't even provide visibility on the spread they are making!

Cheers,

Mark

Posted by: Mark Sigal | April 29, 2010 at 01:05 PM

I'm the last to defend Microsoft's business practices. What I think is that when it comes to building out Win32 as a platform they seemed quite happy to let everyone have access to the API. What's at stake here isn't even if they competed in market segments previously occupied by users of their API, its that they never had the power to say that a given piece of software using their API was unfit to be used. Win32 and their other APIs are like this, the Web is like this, the App Store is not.

On A) we both agree. And I think we also both agree that it is too early to call a winner.

On B) I also agree and my argument is one of risk management. As an investor are you really comfortable knowing that your 10M company that you hope to grow to 100+ can be reduced to 0 instantly if Apple so decides? Really? Returns have to be adjusted for risk.

I'm not sure what you mean by the AdWords/AdSense model applied to the platform. Android has a market, with paid apps and everything. Aren't the mechanics of the business model for an app developer the same in both platforms?

When it comes to the devices I don't think Google's business model is really a factor in this discussions because when it comes to Android I don't think they really have one. They just want to make sure the web browser is a commodity hence Chrome/ChromeOS/Android. Google just wants to make sure that Apple/Microsoft aren't able to shut their revenue off by blocking ads or sending people to Bing.

The big clash I see here is that Google wants the mobile platform to be a commodity and for the value to be in web services. Apple wants precisely the opposite. Google is also perfectly happy with winning against open competition in the service market, as changing search engine is trivial. While Apple wants to win the mobile platform war and lock it up.

Given all this I'd much rather have Google win and mobile be a similar competitive environment to the desktop than have Apple as a gatekeeper between me and the customer. But that's just why I hope Android/WebOS/Meego win, not any argument for why that will actually happen.

Posted by: Pedro Côrte-Real | May 04, 2010 at 02:17 AM

My only point specific to Microsoft is that they were known to hobble APIs to block unfavored developers, use undocumented APIs to benefit their apps over others. I don't think Apple has played this type of scorched earth. We can quibble on the multi-tasking and their decision to deliver a best of breed user experience, but I think that that is different than the way Microsoft played.

My point specific to Google is that their whole model is predicated on owning search traffic and monetizing via advertising. That's why it's a misnomer to say they have no business model with Android. Their model is the same as it is on desktop. Give something away for free so that they can monetize the eyeballs contextually.

As a user, I assess that value proposition on what it's lead to in the way of web models, which I see as a poor, LCD experience. It's the price we pay for FREE. As a developer, I look at Google's value proposition, and I see a faustian bargain. No one gets even remotely rich in the Google model -- just look at how media has been decimated and how only a small handful of high traffic web properties make money by directly leveraging the google model. Plus, OPEN google is completely non-transparent when it comes to sharing their index, let alone sharing the revenue spread they make.

Personally, I am tired of a LCD web experience, don't believe that Google gets user experience, sweats the details in product iteration (that's why they have so many immature products) so I favor the Apple model.

Also, I think that it's worth noting that Apple has driven far more innovation in embracing mobile web in TANDEM with native than Google has.

The success of WebKit, the embrace of HTML 5 and the breaking of the carrier log jam is Apple.

That said, I favor a good, strong competitor to keep apple in check, as absolute power corrupts absolutely, right?

Posted by: Mark Sigal | May 06, 2010 at 01:16 PM

"My point specific to Google is that their whole model is predicated on owning search traffic and monetizing via advertising."

Yep, and this is the same on every platform and not a characteristic of mobile. They do a lot of giving stuff away and monetizing with advertising in their web offerings. I don't necessarily think that is the best model but I don't mind it since Web apps without network effects (e.g., Gmail) have very low switching costs.

"That's why it's a misnomer to say they have no business model with Android. Their model is the same as it is on desktop. Give something away for free so that they can monetize the eyeballs contextually"

They're not giving away phones. They're funding the R&D on the operating system but only because they're afraid Apple will lock up the market for the devices. The reason I say they don't have a business model for Android is that they don't care who makes money on mobile phones as long as there isn't a single vendor that can dictate terms to them. The browser must remain a commodity. That's the common theme across Chrome/ChromeOS/Android. None of them are revenue lines, they're there to control the risks of having your product's ultimate delivery in the hands of gatekeepers.

As you say Apple was doing great work on the web front and had they aimed to be the high-end supplier to a commodity market (like on the desktop) Google wouldn't care. But they made a larger play and now we get to watch the fireworks.

Pedro

Posted by: Pedro Côrte-Real | May 06, 2010 at 05:44 PM