The current marketplace battle between Apple's hugely popular iPhone and smartphones running Google's Android operating system is reminiscent of the Apple-Microsoft battle that shaped desktop computing for much of the 1980s and 1990s. The difference is that this time, Apple probably won't be left in the dust, picking up market share crumbs from niche sectors like graphic arts and education.
One sign that things will be a little different this time: the rollout of the iPhone to Verizon Wireless customers.
Apple probably needed to make this move, as its original exclusive deal with AT&T tied iPhone users to a company whose network and service recently ranked last among users who responded to a Consumer Reports survey of cell phone service providers. But it does go against Apple's grain of tying its customers to a single source for everything they might want.
That, along with its premium price, hobbled the Macintosh in its fight for desktop supremacy with Microsoft's Windows operating system. The same fundamental difference applies in the iOS vs. Android contest: Android is fully committed to the open-source model, which means that many companies can adapt and customize the system and create applications for it.
Yet there are some other differences that are likely to make the outcome of this contest different. One is that Apple's phones are competitively priced. Another is that Apple's control-freakery means that there are no differences in the user experience for iPhone owners; Android users, by contrast, face interfaces that vary by phone manufacturer and service provider. And while it's not difficult to get the hang of using Android, it's not quite as easy or intuitive as the iOS; ease of use has long been an Apple advantage.
Application programmers have also signaled by their behavior that this competition will be different: developers continue to create hundreds of apps for both iPhone and Android, and a number of popular applications remain iPhone-only, while popular Android-only apps appear fewer in number. Still, more Android phones are being sold in the aggregate than iPhones. For Apple to change that dynamic, it will probably have to open up its distribution channels some more and work out agreements with other major carriers, including Sprint, T-Mobile, and maybe even one of the major pay-as-you-go providers.
One sign that things will be a little different this time: the rollout of the iPhone to Verizon Wireless customers.
Apple probably needed to make this move, as its original exclusive deal with AT&T tied iPhone users to a company whose network and service recently ranked last among users who responded to a Consumer Reports survey of cell phone service providers. But it does go against Apple's grain of tying its customers to a single source for everything they might want.
That, along with its premium price, hobbled the Macintosh in its fight for desktop supremacy with Microsoft's Windows operating system. The same fundamental difference applies in the iOS vs. Android contest: Android is fully committed to the open-source model, which means that many companies can adapt and customize the system and create applications for it.
Yet there are some other differences that are likely to make the outcome of this contest different. One is that Apple's phones are competitively priced. Another is that Apple's control-freakery means that there are no differences in the user experience for iPhone owners; Android users, by contrast, face interfaces that vary by phone manufacturer and service provider. And while it's not difficult to get the hang of using Android, it's not quite as easy or intuitive as the iOS; ease of use has long been an Apple advantage.
Application programmers have also signaled by their behavior that this competition will be different: developers continue to create hundreds of apps for both iPhone and Android, and a number of popular applications remain iPhone-only, while popular Android-only apps appear fewer in number. Still, more Android phones are being sold in the aggregate than iPhones. For Apple to change that dynamic, it will probably have to open up its distribution channels some more and work out agreements with other major carriers, including Sprint, T-Mobile, and maybe even one of the major pay-as-you-go providers.
By Sandy Smith
Sandy Smith is an award-winning writer and editor who has spent most of his career in public relations and corporate communications. His work has appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia CityPaper, PGN, and a number of Web sites. Philly-area residents may also recognize him as "MarketStEl" of discussion-board fame. He has been a part of the great reserve army of freelance writers since January 2009 and is actively seeking opportunities wherever they may lie.
Become a member to take advantage of more features, like commenting and voting.
Register or sign in today!