Ballmer was not wrong about the iPhone. He said they would get 2-3% of the total phone market, not the smartphone market. He even makes that clear in the part that Gruber quoted: "... 1.3 billion phones ...". That's phones, not smartphones.
His points on Microsoft are well made. Given the strategic importance of this market it amazes me how badly they've done. Realize they beat Apple to market by around 4 years (depending on how you count the PocketPC/Phone hybrids) and Google by almost 5 .
Now they've tossed the whole thing out and started over with a product that won't be out for another 6 months and in terms of features seems to be equivalent to a first generation iPhone (which is relevant because I really don't think Microsoft is going to create a better user experience so they'd have to compete on features)
In the PC market, Apple competes on quality, Microsoft (with hardware manufacturers) competes on price. This is the world Ballmer imagined for the smartphone market, but when Google knocked the floor out by giving away the OS (or even paying the carrier a cut of the search revenue), there is no place left for Microsoft to position itself.
Unless Windows Mobile is a vastly superior product to Android (and how likely is that?), it'll be left out of the smartphone market unless they can give it away and try to make it up in Bing search revenue.
Maybe I'm less anti-Microsoft than most (disclaimer: I worked there for a summer), but since WPS7 will be out before my current iPhone/AT&T contract ends, my plan is to switch to a Windows phone. I think the UI looks great (though practical usability is still in question), and I've always preferred Outlook to Gmail. My main gripe would be using an IE7-based browser, but as long as I can install Opera Mobile that shouldn't matter. I also wouldn't mind switching to the Zune platform - I've heard good things about the Zune desktop client, and iTunes has numerous problems. (I don't think Android offers any support for smart playlists, which would be a real pain for me.) I guess it might be obvious from the above that doing the core tasks well (email, browsing, music) is more important to me than how many googols of apps are available...plus, by using XNA as a dev platform, I suspect the learning curve for creating WPS7 apps will be lower than for iPhone/Android, because there are already tons of XNA devs.
Of course, this is all predicated on WPS7 meeting expectations, the pretty UI actually being usable, etc. Otherwise, Android. So I guess the point is that, at least in my case, Microsoft is still in the game, but they have only one chance to deliver.
The first-gen iPhone had a really good web-browser. Even if Microsoft miraculously finishes IE9 and ports it to WinMo 7 in time for the launch, it's still going to be a substandard mobile browser, and thanks to the all-Silverlight development platform, there will be no other browsers available.
Although syncing with a computer may feel retrograde, I'm sure theres a lot of people, including myself, that would rather keep their data due to privacy issues instead of relying on Google or Apple to store it. However, I think most people would prefer cloud syncing since it is so easy for the user.
His footnote is interesting: "Although there’s still no decent Android-based equivalent to the iPod Touch."
He's right. Based on price, there is no equivalent.
On features, the equivalent is a Google Nexus One without a SIM card.
Trouble is, that's about to not be available from Google directly. I'm wondering whether we'll be able to buy an N1 without a contract ever again.
Disclosure: I bought an N1 directly from Google and loved the experience of not having to talk to a carrier or any staff member at a generic retail outlet.
Although people who buy iTouches love all the apps and the ability to browse the web whenever they have WiFi, in the end, they're buying an mp3 player. They're buying it so that they can listen to music.
Not only is the N1 much more expensive, but it also has a much worse music-playing interface. Until someone fixes the Android music player or writes their own (luckily, an app can have all the privileges that the core apps have, so anyone could just write the Awesome Music Player app and put it in the market), the demand for a good Android iTouch competitor won't be there.
But I do think that getting an iTouch-like Android device out there is important. There are only so many people who are willing to pay $30/month for Internet on their phone, but pretty much everyone is willing to pay $200-$300 for a nice mp3 player with no recurring cost. And it's important to get as many Android devices out there as possible so that consumers believe that it's a good option (in many people's minds, popular == good) and app developers see more incentive to write good apps.
It's not just Microsoft who seem to be out of the game so to speak. What's going on with Nokia? It's taking them forever to come up with a device and/or platform that seems like a credible competitor to Android and iPhone OS.
Nokia switched tracks, abandoning Symbian for the smartphones and putting their chips on Meego embedded Linux and Qt for the UI.
There's a huge effort to make Qt into a higher level framework that can be used like Cocoa Touch or the Android UI elements. The Qt Declarative/Quick stuff is being advanced as quickly as they can work, but after working with the latest stuff they have a ways to go.
I have a hunch Nokia thinks they'll be able to quickly catch up.
And that makes me somewhat sad. I've been a user of Nokia for 10 years and I allways loved those devices. When I purchased my last phone, 1.5 years ago, I gave them a vote of confidence and got an E71 instead of an iPhone.
It's funny because John starts with "Google is doing this fine" and "Apple is doing that fine", and "we are all gonna get better smartphones with this kind of rilvalry" and then when you think he is goint to add Microsoft into the rivalry: "Oh, yeah, remember Microsoft? it seems like they don't remember the smartphone market"
Google is upping the ante on the iPhone here, though, by adding cloud-based data backup for Android applications
How many apps will actually support this feature? It doesn't sound like it's an OS level feature transparent to third party apps. Am I going to have to keep track of which apps support it and which don't?
> One area where the iPhone has been far ahead of Android is in terms of backing up and restoring data. Buy a new iPhone, or install a major OS update, and when you re-sync with iTunes on your desktop, all your apps and data are re-installed.
Gruber doesn't seem to get that Android is cloud based: buy a new Android phone, sign in, and your contacts, apps and bookmarks are available immediately, no finding a PC to tether to.
Music and (for some odd reason) text messages are currently excluded though.
I think he does, but he acknowledges that data isn't included in the previous cloud based offering.
I was blown away when I first got an N1 (my first android) and signed in on startup and immediately had my contacts, email, calendar, etc wired up.
No computer required. No special software required. It just works.
What Google are doing now is taking that further and making that include data like music, pictures, TXT messages, etc. So now when you replace your android that stuff automatically comes across.
What would be lovely is that instead of just sync, whether we could manage the older devices. i.e: Get a new mobile, sync it, declare the old mobile to be wiped and have the old mobile hear that and purge itself.
This helps on the security side, as you could remotely wipe a stolen device. But it also helps with re-selling used phones safe in the knowledge that your data is intact and you're not leaving any on the device.
I think it's the next obvious gap filler in the cloud-owning-the-data space. We can move and sync, now clean up behind us.
Well, that and the fact that if data is persisted across all devices that you eventually will exceed the storage capacity of the device itself. But I'm guessing that network speed will keep pace with this and by the time we're at that crunch point Google will be able to serve that stuff on-demand and just use the phone as a local cache rather than as the persistent storage itself.
Gruber's thoughts can be summed up as: Google vs Apple, bring it on, but where's Microsoft? While he isn't wrong, it's not exactly much more than some common sense.
I also think he _seriously_ underestimates Microsoft.
It is certainly possible that Microsoft could turn around, but I doubt it: they have a huge cash reserve, yes but that is not going to make them relevant.
What would be interesting would be if they got an entire new board + CEO, Steve Ballmer isn't ready to lead and never will be.
Microsoft will be 3.5 years late to the smartphone party when windows phone 7 series will eventually be released. People would have already made their choice between iPhone and Android.
It's shocking how irrelevant they are in most of the things that are getting a lot of press these days. It's hard for me to imagine the scenario where Windows ever becomes a big player on mobile.
I wonder where they'd be if they'd have been broken up by the US government a decade ago.
The interesting things here are (1) that microsoft isn't even mentioned as one of the protagonists in the main battle (that's clearly apple vs google, (2) that google has done to microsoft what microsoft did to netscape, give away the product the other party hopes to sell.
It appears to me the biggest news from google I/O was the release of flash on android, just a couple weeks after Steve Jobs says it wasn't practical. Google just didn't demo it and give a release date several months away, but they delivered it (with reports of folks getting 2.2 pushed already). Seems like Apple needs to reconsider their position on Flash... already.
Flash could run at 100% native app speeds with no battery hit and Apple still wouldn't support it. Why? It's not part of their overall plan to give Adobe power over the platform.
So no, Apple doesn't need to (and won't) reconsider their position on Flash.
I up-vote this, you are specifying what does it appears to you. I also agree with you, it is true that probably flash isn't the future from the web, but at least is part of the present.
Take the current URL from your PC web browser and push it to your device, over the air. If it’s a web page, it’ll open in the Android web browser; if it’s a Google Maps URL, it’ll open in the Android Maps app.
Meaning that now, not only can spyware pop up porn on my parents' home computer, it can also push porn to my kid sister's cell phone? Ditto for apps... I imagine spyware is a thing of the past for most Googlers, but it certainly isn't for the majority of users.
Isn't there going to be security with this feature? I don't think any app/website can send remote commands without having your credentials. If spyware has your kid sister's Google credentials, pop-ups are the last of her worries.
I'm not sure Apple is ahead on backup & restore with the iPhone / iPad.
You shouldn't need a desktop (with an OS that runs iTunes) in the first place. I read that the first thing you need to do with iPad is to connect it to iTunes.
What Gruber was getting at is that Apple has a far better syncing strategy since Android wipes everything between updates and Apple neatly brings all your data with you.
That said, the cloud-based syncing that Android will eventually ship looks like the "right" solution. I doubt anyone at Apple considers USB syncing to be the end game, though; I'd be shocked if they didn't have some sort of over-the-air syncing in the pipeline. The question in my mind is will they fix this in 2010 or will they fix this a few years from now. People won't want to stay tethered that much longer.
As a sidenote- syncing over USB makes sense for the iPhone, in some respects, but the iPad lends itself to be a standalone computer. Tying that to another centralized hub is a hassle, and that's where an Android-esque cloud sync would be great.
Personally, I feel more comfortable having total control over my data first, and then choosing what I want to share with "the cloud". The direct personal control over syncing to a device I also control is the more critical factor over not requiring a separate computer for me.
[+] [-] ssp|16 years ago|reply
According to http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apple-iphone-smartphone-market... in the first quarter of 2010 Apple had 16.1% of smartphones and smartphones were 18.8% of mobile phones. That comes out to almost exactly 3%.
Ballmer also wasn't wrong about Windows Mobile. The "60 percent or 70 percent or 80 percent" was not a prediction, it was just what he would prefer.
[+] [-] mechanical_fish|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boundlessdreamz|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjogin|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TomOfTTB|16 years ago|reply
Now they've tossed the whole thing out and started over with a product that won't be out for another 6 months and in terms of features seems to be equivalent to a first generation iPhone (which is relevant because I really don't think Microsoft is going to create a better user experience so they'd have to compete on features)
It's really kind of sad.
[+] [-] frederickcook|16 years ago|reply
Unless Windows Mobile is a vastly superior product to Android (and how likely is that?), it'll be left out of the smartphone market unless they can give it away and try to make it up in Bing search revenue.
[+] [-] endtime|16 years ago|reply
Of course, this is all predicated on WPS7 meeting expectations, the pretty UI actually being usable, etc. Otherwise, Android. So I guess the point is that, at least in my case, Microsoft is still in the game, but they have only one chance to deliver.
[+] [-] DrSprout|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raptrex|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mootymoots|16 years ago|reply
USB syncing is sooo 20th Century
[+] [-] symesc|16 years ago|reply
He's right. Based on price, there is no equivalent.
On features, the equivalent is a Google Nexus One without a SIM card.
Trouble is, that's about to not be available from Google directly. I'm wondering whether we'll be able to buy an N1 without a contract ever again.
Disclosure: I bought an N1 directly from Google and loved the experience of not having to talk to a carrier or any staff member at a generic retail outlet.
[+] [-] jackowayed|16 years ago|reply
Although people who buy iTouches love all the apps and the ability to browse the web whenever they have WiFi, in the end, they're buying an mp3 player. They're buying it so that they can listen to music.
Not only is the N1 much more expensive, but it also has a much worse music-playing interface. Until someone fixes the Android music player or writes their own (luckily, an app can have all the privileges that the core apps have, so anyone could just write the Awesome Music Player app and put it in the market), the demand for a good Android iTouch competitor won't be there.
But I do think that getting an iTouch-like Android device out there is important. There are only so many people who are willing to pay $30/month for Internet on their phone, but pretty much everyone is willing to pay $200-$300 for a nice mp3 player with no recurring cost. And it's important to get as many Android devices out there as possible so that consumers believe that it's a good option (in many people's minds, popular == good) and app developers see more incentive to write good apps.
[+] [-] Tichy|16 years ago|reply
Also, will iPhone OS 4 be available for iPod Touch? I rather doubt it?
[+] [-] kenshi|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joezydeco|16 years ago|reply
There's a huge effort to make Qt into a higher level framework that can be used like Cocoa Touch or the Android UI elements. The Qt Declarative/Quick stuff is being advanced as quickly as they can work, but after working with the latest stuff they have a ways to go.
I have a hunch Nokia thinks they'll be able to quickly catch up.
[+] [-] armandososa|16 years ago|reply
I regret it every day. Stupid E71.
[+] [-] barredo|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsz0|16 years ago|reply
How many apps will actually support this feature? It doesn't sound like it's an OS level feature transparent to third party apps. Am I going to have to keep track of which apps support it and which don't?
[+] [-] nailer|16 years ago|reply
Gruber doesn't seem to get that Android is cloud based: buy a new Android phone, sign in, and your contacts, apps and bookmarks are available immediately, no finding a PC to tether to.
Music and (for some odd reason) text messages are currently excluded though.
[+] [-] buro9|16 years ago|reply
I was blown away when I first got an N1 (my first android) and signed in on startup and immediately had my contacts, email, calendar, etc wired up.
No computer required. No special software required. It just works.
What Google are doing now is taking that further and making that include data like music, pictures, TXT messages, etc. So now when you replace your android that stuff automatically comes across.
What would be lovely is that instead of just sync, whether we could manage the older devices. i.e: Get a new mobile, sync it, declare the old mobile to be wiped and have the old mobile hear that and purge itself.
This helps on the security side, as you could remotely wipe a stolen device. But it also helps with re-selling used phones safe in the knowledge that your data is intact and you're not leaving any on the device.
I think it's the next obvious gap filler in the cloud-owning-the-data space. We can move and sync, now clean up behind us.
Well, that and the fact that if data is persisted across all devices that you eventually will exceed the storage capacity of the device itself. But I'm guessing that network speed will keep pace with this and by the time we're at that crunch point Google will be able to serve that stuff on-demand and just use the phone as a local cache rather than as the persistent storage itself.
[+] [-] adbge|16 years ago|reply
I also think he _seriously_ underestimates Microsoft.
[+] [-] tomjen3|16 years ago|reply
What would be interesting would be if they got an entire new board + CEO, Steve Ballmer isn't ready to lead and never will be.
[+] [-] protomyth|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sasidharm|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mootymoots|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glhaynes|16 years ago|reply
I wonder where they'd be if they'd have been broken up by the US government a decade ago.
[+] [-] jacquesm|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] writetoalok|16 years ago|reply
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/microsoft-sues-salesforce-c...
[+] [-] dave1619|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] czhiddy|16 years ago|reply
So no, Apple doesn't need to (and won't) reconsider their position on Flash.
[+] [-] juanefren|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andreyf|16 years ago|reply
Meaning that now, not only can spyware pop up porn on my parents' home computer, it can also push porn to my kid sister's cell phone? Ditto for apps... I imagine spyware is a thing of the past for most Googlers, but it certainly isn't for the majority of users.
[+] [-] watty|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freetard|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stanleydrew|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Psyonic|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anr|16 years ago|reply
You shouldn't need a desktop (with an OS that runs iTunes) in the first place. I read that the first thing you need to do with iPad is to connect it to iTunes.
[+] [-] holman|16 years ago|reply
That said, the cloud-based syncing that Android will eventually ship looks like the "right" solution. I doubt anyone at Apple considers USB syncing to be the end game, though; I'd be shocked if they didn't have some sort of over-the-air syncing in the pipeline. The question in my mind is will they fix this in 2010 or will they fix this a few years from now. People won't want to stay tethered that much longer.
As a sidenote- syncing over USB makes sense for the iPhone, in some respects, but the iPad lends itself to be a standalone computer. Tying that to another centralized hub is a hassle, and that's where an Android-esque cloud sync would be great.
[+] [-] WiseWeasel|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perpetuity|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]