The most interesting thing about all this is simply how personally Jobs and Gruber both seem to have taken the competition from Google. They genuinely seem to feel enormously betrayed by it. What this tells me is that both of them are now starting to acknowledge internally that Android really is an enormous threat to the iPhone and it is so in ways that they simply can't compete with. Google is putting out an operating system that is nearly as good as Apple's, runs on any hardware that anyone wants it to and is completely free. Apple can't hurt Google by undermining it profits because it doesn't make the hardware and it gives the software away. It really seems like an unfair fight. But what I think really hurts is Google invalidates Apple's core thesis, that control, power and lockdown are necessary for a consumer friendly operating system. Right as Apple is trying to justify not including Flash by saying it can't work properly on phones, Google is there adding it into Android and making them look like fools.
Incidentally Gruber seems to be conveniently overlooking a lot of history here. Hostilities really started when Apple banned Google Voice from the iPhone. Prior to that things were pretty friendly, but after that Google realized it couldn't afford to play friendly with Apple - so they enabled multitouch in Android and things went downhill from there. Although it's a completely pointless and silly game to play if you really follow it back I think there is a very good argument that Apple started this whole falling out.
If you think back 25 years, Jobs has been here before with Microsoft, and it nearly killed his company. After all, Microsoft started out selling software, including on the Mac, and did a good job of it, and got what Apple was doing! And then they made their own platform, and the rest, as they say, is history.
I'd say there is a clear parallel here, and consciously or subconsciously, that is why it is war -- because it was war last time, and they almost lost.
I think there's a very strong argument to be made that Windows nearly killed Apple because Jobs made the same mistakes he is making today with the iPhone platform.
Microsoft actively courted hardware manufacturers of all shapes and sizes. Apple sued anyone who tried to produce compatible hardware without their blessing.
Microsoft actively courted developers, by providing them with a strong toolchain and turning them loose on the platform. Apple sacrificed developers on the altar of user experience.
It's not much different today. Android is "fragmented" across who-knows how many different hardware sets, which has the dual result of making the platform less consistent for the benefit of letting consumers pick the hardware that does what they want at a price point they are comfortable with. Android favors developers almost to a fault; Apple's abuse of developers in order to preserve the user experience is legendary. If history is any indicator, Jobs should be very afraid. Apple has a tremendous first-mover advantage, and there is one very key difference in that they have the larger software base at the moment, but with the speed at which the Android platform is evolving and growing, it isn't difficult at all to imagine that Apple could find the iPhone eating dust in a few short quarters.
And here is where the battle lines are drawn this time:
> Microsoft actively courted hardware manufacturers of all shapes and sizes. Apple sued anyone who tried to produce compatible hardware without their blessing.
No-one is going to make a compatible iPhone, and Apple is also using patents to try prevent anyone making anything even comparable. On hardware, Apple is fighting harder than last time.
> Microsoft actively courted developers, by providing them with a strong toolchain and turning them loose on the platform. Apple sacrificed developers on the altar of user experience.
Now, Apple can actually stop you selling your software on their platform, in an instant - power only to be dreamed of in 1985! Add to that, the ban on Flash that is forcing developers to do twice the work or only support the dominant player (Apple.) They did the same with the Mac, no cursor keys and so on, but this time it's even stricter. No Google Voice, no way to run the same code on iPhone and Android, no apps that infringe on Apple's ever-moving goalposts...
Apple has not given up on the strategy they tried with the Mac. Oh no, it's just that they weren't strict enough and the stupid courts never ruled in their favour! Now they have a proper level of control, they can make sure the iPhone wins! BUWAHAHAHAHAAAA!
I think there's a very strong argument to be made that Windows nearly killed Apple because Jobs made the same mistakes he is making today with the iPhone platform.
Jobs wasn't even at Apple after John Sculley forced him out in 1985, you know. Even before the Macintosh debuted, it was Sculley who decided to raise the price from the originally-planned $1,995 price to $2,495. Does that sound like a move Steve would make? Contrary to your point, I think Jobs-era Apple is pretty different from Sculley-era Apple.
Google is and always has been playing a "heads I win, tails I win" game with Android and sure enough is positioned to win. Not just against Apple but the telcos too.
Google Voice was a major move here.
I like my iPhone, but I like a carrier independent phone number with web access to my voicemail and SMS way more.
Apple is putting up a killer fight and it's fun to watch. But Google is hacking away at the entire mobile, portable, and cloud landscape. Someday Apple will come back to drink from these wells or customers will leave.
Gruber is nuts for the footnote saying Android will lose money for Google...
My only problem with Google is that as a user, the hacking can sometimes cut both ways. I liked some of those walls that were there (like the ones I'm living in), and it would be nice if Google could learn to avoid the ones you want to leave up.
As for the footnote, I agree that it's a loser's game to argue that Google shouldn't have risked competing with Apple's iPhone platform, in the hopes that they wouldn't eventually choose to lock their ad platform out. These companies don't run on hope.
Denying Google voice often gets glazed over. It angered both Google and many consumers who wanted the product. Additionally, it showed that Apple was not just keeping bad software off of their platform. Banning it demonstrated that Apple was also willing to axe content due to pressure from AT&T.
It could also be related to the possibility that Apple didn't like the notion of a large portion of their users' voice and text communications passing through an untrusted 3rd party, adding a potentially large security vulnerability that could reflect negatively on them. I'm not saying that's the reason they did it, but simply that it doesn't necessarily demonstrate influence from AT&T, though I'm sure they, along with most other dominant carrier partners around the world, were not too thrilled with the prospect.
Another speculation is that Apple saw Google Voice as a platform threat of the same variety as Flash, where Apple's users would potentially become dependent on a 3rd party platform. Obviously, it would also ease migration from the iPhone. There are several plausible reasons that don't involve AT&T.
Separately, it's funny you should mention Skype and Facetime. The move with the Facetime 'open standard' seems aimed squarely at Skype, a shot across their bow, while Apple empowers them with iOS 4 multitasking support.
This is also interesting in the iPad. It had a mounting spot for a camera in the body, but shipped with it empty. Was the concession made to AT&T, who would offer a cheap data plan in exchange for refraining from giving the platform away to Skype? Was it simply that Apple needed more time to develop other plans in the VoIP voice/video space? Is it a form of coerced obsolescence? My guess is that Apple and AT&T (and other carrier partners) agreed to hold off on the camera until next year's 4G network model, as the wireless network could conceivably support widespread use of videoconferencing, making their offering much more competitive against Skype.
Totally different network architectures. GV is all routed centrally, from my understanding. Apple cares at least to the extent that it doesn't cause PR issues. In any case, my point is merely that we don't know how much pressure AT&T put on Apple over the decision.
> Apple can't hurt Google by undermining it profits because it doesn't make the hardware and it gives the software away.
Apple can undermine Google's profits from mobile advertising, by giving the advertising revenue from iAds away (keep a small cut, give the rest to developers.) Google is trying to commoditize hardware, but Apple can do the equivalent with respect to advertising revenues. Apple doesn't need to make money from ads, google does.
The phones are expensive. They are not a commodity.
Also, when you buy a new phone, you don't get to choose what operating system you want to install on it and then buy that OS. The phone+os ships together as a single entity.
"A commodity is a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. It is fungible, i.e. the same no matter who produces it."
That is becoming a more accurate description of the Android market by the day. Nexus One, EVO 4G, Droid X... they're all pretty similar.
>That is becoming a more accurate description of the Android market by the day. Nexus One, EVO 4G, Droid X... they're all pretty similar.
So then why buy any specific one of them?
Because they aren't similar, your ridiculous statement aside.
The whole point of the Android hardware ecosystem is that it's a disparity of often very different phones. Some have fast CPUs some have slow CPUs. Some have great cameras with a Xenon flash, some don't. Some have keyboards, some don't. Some are big, some are small. It is the absolute opposite of commodity, and only the most ludicrous, superficial analysis could even imagine using that word.
An iPhone, on the other hand, is a commodity as far as iPhones go. It's an iPhone, you know. Just an iPhone.
I've never seen commodity used to refer to products from the same range, from the same manufacturer. Basically, you've just claimed that anthying that isn't a hand-made one-off creation is a commodity, massively weakening its actual meaning which you're supposed to be defending from misuse.
Commodity isn't a totally binary state, even with fuel or coffee you get variations in quality and brand. It's just that these factors do not dominate. At the other end of the scale Apple is trying very hard to stop iPhones becoming commodities by stopping cross platform Flash apps, not allowing access to iTunes etc. which prevents similar devices from other manufacturers being swapped in without disruption. Saying you want to move your complements down the scale towards being a commodity doesn't imply that they will end up at the extreme, just that they'll have less market power over you, the definition of commodity often being given as an item being sold or bought at a market rate.
There is absolutely no confusion when people talk about the commoditization of phone hardware. No one is saying phones will become coffee. You can get pretty much any combination of features from any vendor.
Feel free to be frustrated by imprecise usage of technical terms.
It isn't just imprecise -- it's completely the opposite of reality.
It's as logical as saying food is a commodity item because ultimately you eat food. Or cars are a commodity item because you use them to drive from a to b. Only an utter moron would use it in such a context.
Food is pretty much the archetype for commodities. Not because "you eat food," but because it doesn't really matter where your apricots, rice, or baby mice[1] come from. You'll buy the one that is either freshest or least expensive, and rarely focus on the provider unless it happens to have an advantage that relates to those two criteria.
Ok, the car comparison is good. I agree now that phones can't really be a commodity.
I still think it's okay to refer to decreasing differentiation in a market as "commoditization". People understand what's being said, and there's no other concise way to say it.
Incidentally Gruber seems to be conveniently overlooking a lot of history here. Hostilities really started when Apple banned Google Voice from the iPhone. Prior to that things were pretty friendly, but after that Google realized it couldn't afford to play friendly with Apple - so they enabled multitouch in Android and things went downhill from there. Although it's a completely pointless and silly game to play if you really follow it back I think there is a very good argument that Apple started this whole falling out.