"To Steve, clones are the drag of the ordinary on the innovative. All that crap about cloners not sharing the cost of R&D is just rationalization. Steve puts enormous value on the engines of innovation. Killing off the cloners just eliminates a drag on his own R&D,..."
As an iPhone developer, who developed the skill through
brute-force experience and trial through throwing away lots of code, I wonder why Google doesn't take advantage of this. Currently, the iPhone SDK is better than the Android's SDK. Similar to the high value of Microsoft Visual Studio integrating everything into a true integrated environment, the iPhone SDK is much closer to Microsoft Visual Studio-like than the Android SDK.
Overnight, Google could start to change this underdog status. Why doesn't Google buy Appcelerator's Titanium or Phonegap? By buying a software tool company that makes it much easier to write Android apps, Google could show up in force for the battlefield of developer mindshare and consumer experience, by giving away the tool free and sponsoring conferences, contests, bloggers, heck even venture capital for Android-focus companies.
In the long run, because of their carpet bombing approach with devices, Google will earn the majority share of smart mobile device operating systems. Why not accelerate the process by making it easier for developers to make something? Not everyone is above-average when it comes to software development - why not make the Visual Basic for mobile platforms. I argue that Visual Basic was a key linchpin of Microsoft's Windows dominance. Before Visual Basic, you had to use the Windows API or (yes, a third-party app framework) like Foxpro.
Because ultimately developers go where the users are. It makes sense, then, to optimize for getting users first, and then take care of the developers once it's clear that they have a userbase to develop for.
Because Google has never genuinely competed on quality, except for search results, and that was only for a blessed golden period. (And not counting Gmail, which was a 20% project, and is only considered high quality because the rest of the state of web-based email interfaces is horrible, open source shit.)
Google doesn't need finesse: They strongarm, using brute force & sheer volume. That's what they do.
Ergo, they don't need to finesse the SDK or truly court developers. (The best way to court developers is to ensure apps sell - and the Android marketplace numbers are dismal.)
<i>, and is only considered high quality because the rest of the state of web-based email interfaces is horrible, open source shit.)</i>
I take issue with this. Google is also better than non-web based email clients as well, including outlook, thunderbird and Apple mail. It searches quicker as well, which is completely unbelievable.
Sure, some things these clients do better, but for most tasks, gmail is much better. Outlook 2010, just released last week, has just started linking email conversations.
Getting further OT: I used to agree wholeheartedly with this, but have you noticed how slow Gmail is getting? I recently switched back to Apple mail, after insisting on Gmail as my frontend for years. Can't beat Google on search speed, but Apple does a fine job of that, and every other function is considerably faster.
And not counting Gmail, which was a 20% project, and is only considered high quality because the rest of the state of web-based email interfaces is horrible, open source shit.
What's so bad about Squirrelmail? It seemed pretty snappy when I tried it.
I never really thought about Google before like that. Thanks. I guess they will stick to their core competencies, and I wonder how much of Google's operational philosophy is due to individuals like Marissa Mayer. Or is it The Borg.
Repace clones with middleware when you read this.