Watching Google's rollout of Android to date, including this week's announcements around the Google-branded, HTC built, Nexus One phone, I am left with two conflicting thoughts. Is it the beginning of their assent into Windows-like dominance or the fortnight of their 'Waterloo' moment?
Why? Three reasons. One, so much of the Industry Prognosticators' analysis is to see the iPhone v. Android battle in terms of Microsoft Windows v. Apple Macintosh, with the premise being that the company with the broadest base of hardware OEM support will inevitably outflank and usurp the market position of the integrated and more proprietary hardware, software solution provider (read: Apple then and Apple now).
Two, the analog forgets how much of Apple's playbook is TAKEN from Microsoft Windows; namely, build the biggest, most deeply engaged ecosystem, and start with the developers.
Then build derivative products (iPod, iPhone, iPod Touch, Tablet, Mac, Apple TV) that leverage the core feature set, distribution, etc. (iTunes, App Store, SDK, Apple Retail) so that there is a good reason to standardize or buy multiple products from the same vendor.
Three, if anything, the better analogy is Microsoft v. Novell, where Novell, the one time network operating system leader was so envious of Microsoft's desktop position, that they left themselves vulnerable to the innovations around the Internet.
For Google, the obvious vulnerability is AdWords/AdSense, which represents 90%+ of their revenues; where most advertisers in my world are fairly disappointed with the quality of the ad unit, the contextual relevance of its placement (when's the last time you clicked on an AdWord?), the analytics/tracking richness (why does Google Analytics suck relative to all of the innovation in analytics/BI space?), and the general lack of transparency by "open" Google on what's the spread between what it charges/keeps, which sites perform better than others, etc.
Plus, publishers generally gripe about how the AdWords/AdSense model has undermined the value of their content, and the general economic proposition Google provides. Relative to the world that Google replaced, it was a big step forward, to be sure, but the innovation has been pretty weak there, and they seem potentially vulnerable.
Read the full post at O'Reilly by clicking HERE.
Update One: Engadget has written a fairly exhaustive review of the Nexus One, which while very positive, suggests no game changer.
Update Two: Google touts a revolutionary new distribution model that isn't revolutionary in the US at least. Dave Pogue of NYT spells out why, while issuing a collective Yawn on the announce. Daring Fireball mocks Andy Rubin's Q&A session with Om Malik, where Rubin instructs that people should focus less on the device (Nexus One) and more on the strategy behind the device. Walt Mossberg of WSJ gives plenty of love to Nexus One, while stopping short of calling it a game-changer. Tim O'Reilly offers some sage thoughts on how Apple's and Google's respective DNA lead them to manifesting different types of goodness, concluding that gravity tilts in favor of Android. And the always readable, thought-provoking, Bill Gurley calls this an apples and oranges discussion, concluding that iPhone is for the high end, Android is for the masses, humorously intoning that the Apple is well-positioned to be the "Apple" of the smartphone market.
Related Posts:
- Google Android: Inevitability, the Dawn of Mobile and the Missing Leg
- Open "ish": The meaning of open, according to Google
- iPhone, the 'Personal' Computer: The Future of the Mobile Web
