We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly(a16z.com)
a16z.com
We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly
http://a16z.com/2015/02/09/third-mobile-os-3/
116 comments
> There should be no real reason I can't point my iOS device at my own infrastructure to co-ordinate sync
Well there is a real reason, you never own the iphone you have. You never have control of the device, Apple does. They have final say in what can be built to run on it, what can run on it, what you can install, what OS you can run, whether you get updates, and what the phone does. You have no control over it, at all.
So don't act surprised when Apple takes advantage of absolute power to screw you over.
At that, I know owncloud exists for iOS, so you could just use that, at least for the bullet points you mentioned, not so much for the sensors-aware network of devices.
Well there is a real reason, you never own the iphone you have. You never have control of the device, Apple does. They have final say in what can be built to run on it, what can run on it, what you can install, what OS you can run, whether you get updates, and what the phone does. You have no control over it, at all.
So don't act surprised when Apple takes advantage of absolute power to screw you over.
At that, I know owncloud exists for iOS, so you could just use that, at least for the bullet points you mentioned, not so much for the sensors-aware network of devices.
> The OP conveniently ignores all the other mobile OSs out there such as Windows, Firefox, Ubuntu and also people like Fairphone. It's pretty lazy to just claim we need more, when what he really wants is one more (open) winner.
Yeah, I'm not clear how excited he'd be if Microsoft was a major player in mobile. I think if that were the case, we'd just get the same article but with 'triopoly' instead.
Also, did he say custom boot animations? I don't think that's what is holding us back... better examples would strengthen his argument
Yeah, I'm not clear how excited he'd be if Microsoft was a major player in mobile. I think if that were the case, we'd just get the same article but with 'triopoly' instead.
Also, did he say custom boot animations? I don't think that's what is holding us back... better examples would strengthen his argument
Are you talking about having a thin client that talks to a private cloud instead of each client's data residing on the vendor's server? One of the hurdles is that the server side of apps require more than reading and writing files. Full text search, recommender/ml jobs etc. Apps don't just need file systems, they need CPUs.
If an app could be installed on a server and sandboxed (so for example multiple apps could share an ElasticSearch instance without being aware of each other) this would be a big step forward.
If an app could be installed on a server and sandboxed (so for example multiple apps could share an ElasticSearch instance without being aware of each other) this would be a big step forward.
I'm only vaguely familiar with it, but Brad Fitzpatrick has a project called Camlistore [https://camlistore.org/]. Probably worth a look. It seems he's trying to tackle exactly these kinds of problems with that project.
>>There should be no real reason I can't point my iOS device at my own infrastructure to co-ordinate sync, backup and sharing of all my stuff (instead of iCloud).
I want this as much as you and everyone else who upvoted you, but the problem is there is no obvious business model in it. Sure, techies will pay (app.net?), but the general population doesn't care enough to put out money for this.
I want this as much as you and everyone else who upvoted you, but the problem is there is no obvious business model in it. Sure, techies will pay (app.net?), but the general population doesn't care enough to put out money for this.
Yeah, this is kind of a serious problem. People want to use popular, or at least well-advertised platforms. People also don't want to pay any money if they can help it. So we end up with advertising-funded spy-clouds and addiction-funded IAPs as dominant business models.
What I'd like to see, and hardly anyone is talking about, is the cooperative model for this. Servers run by a community of interest; paid staff to manage the things which really require central clearing (anti-spam and anti-abuse in particular) and develop the system; users paying on an ongoing basis and being given a voice and a vote in the way the system is run. Federation with similar systems.
Bits of this exist already, but only on a very small scale and with the political/organisational infrastructure - basically individuals running Minecraft servers and the like.
I suppose I could gather thousands of recruits for something like this if I said "blockchain" a lot, but in truth it's the opposite: a system that requires users to trust individual other humans.
What I'd like to see, and hardly anyone is talking about, is the cooperative model for this. Servers run by a community of interest; paid staff to manage the things which really require central clearing (anti-spam and anti-abuse in particular) and develop the system; users paying on an ongoing basis and being given a voice and a vote in the way the system is run. Federation with similar systems.
Bits of this exist already, but only on a very small scale and with the political/organisational infrastructure - basically individuals running Minecraft servers and the like.
I suppose I could gather thousands of recruits for something like this if I said "blockchain" a lot, but in truth it's the opposite: a system that requires users to trust individual other humans.
That sounds like a commune
There are plenty of ways of making money, including asking your users to pay. Take a look at the number of 'personal cloud' crowdwfunding campaigns to see how much latent demand there is for things like this. Most of those products don't even exist yet.
I think it's a mistake to assume that nobody will pay for such services given the vast number of people online now. It's just a matter of appropriate market segmentation [1]. Business models emerge as people begin to use things, and we should remember that Google didn't have one for a long time (neither did Facebook).
[1] The teenage version of me didn't give a damn and only used free things but the adult version of me has a much better understanding of the trade-offs I'm making (and I also have disposable income now). I don't wish to become a sysadmin, which means I have very few options.
I think it's a mistake to assume that nobody will pay for such services given the vast number of people online now. It's just a matter of appropriate market segmentation [1]. Business models emerge as people begin to use things, and we should remember that Google didn't have one for a long time (neither did Facebook).
[1] The teenage version of me didn't give a damn and only used free things but the adult version of me has a much better understanding of the trade-offs I'm making (and I also have disposable income now). I don't wish to become a sysadmin, which means I have very few options.
All good points. I think it's certainly feasible in the future, but not today. There are challenges besides technical and business that need to be solved too. For instance, you have a personal cloud server you set up that runs all your apps, and you have an Instagram-like app for your photos. How do others get to view your photos? There needs to be an aggregator that runs across servers to pull all the content and puts it into a newsfeed, with an easy to access URL/app for your friends to open and view your photos. How do we get this? With a centralized server?
Isn't that just a technical challenge? In this world view, you are your own central server and everyone else is their own. Let's take your example and run with it (bear in mind I'm ignoring some rough edges here). You share your instagram-style pics into an app on your personal server to begin with and then from there they get federated out to people who've decided to 'follow' you (or those you have allowed to). Practically speaking, the pic (or rather access to it) is given to the app on the personal servers of those followers. Their server then constructs a newsfeed of all the incoming pics and presents it to their user (via an app or web-interface or whatever). This doesn't happen on the mobile device itself but on the 'personal cloud' of the user. There are many things I've glossed over but there doesn't have to be a central server in this scenario and everything can be encrypted end-to-end.
That's why this is really a distributed systems problem. In order for an app-developer to build such an app, the deeper problems around deployment, sync, and identity/connectivity need to be resolved. Developers just need something to target that provides the appropriate components. That's what the toolstack I previously linked is trying to solve. Without that, we're stuck with requiring someone else to provide the central system/aggregator. Clearly this is a non-trivial problem but if it can be cracked then it'll be as impactful as the opening up of the Web was.
That's why this is really a distributed systems problem. In order for an app-developer to build such an app, the deeper problems around deployment, sync, and identity/connectivity need to be resolved. Developers just need something to target that provides the appropriate components. That's what the toolstack I previously linked is trying to solve. Without that, we're stuck with requiring someone else to provide the central system/aggregator. Clearly this is a non-trivial problem but if it can be cracked then it'll be as impactful as the opening up of the Web was.
I wonder how this type of system would get paid for. If we're all paying for our private clouds and we use this 'Distribugram', who pays for server to server transfers? Is it free to the users (handled by provider peering/transit agreements)? Do users pay? Puller or pusher? How does this impact people with many followers/followees? Do they pay more?
Thinking about this, I wonder if the economics would work given the ad-supporter/loss-leading aspects of some of these services. Still, interesting.
Thinking about this, I wonder if the economics would work given the ad-supporter/loss-leading aspects of some of these services. Still, interesting.
>>Isn't that just a technical challenge?
I supposed it could be, or a UI problem....it all depends on the architecture of the code and how you choose to define the problem. Regardless, it's all certainly feasible and possibly will be done sooner or later, it's just a matter of when. Are you familiar with the Diaspora project from a few years back?
https://diasporafoundation.org/
I supposed it could be, or a UI problem....it all depends on the architecture of the code and how you choose to define the problem. Regardless, it's all certainly feasible and possibly will be done sooner or later, it's just a matter of when. Are you familiar with the Diaspora project from a few years back?
https://diasporafoundation.org/
Ok, I am a techie, but I did pay for that kind of setup. I bought Synology NAS box and access my files, pictures, music, videos with Synology apps and couple of other apps built on open standards (WebDAV), sync my notes through WebDAV and so on. I am building another small Linux server to do things I cannot do on Synology, primarily back up of my social streams. This takes quite a bit of time and expertise and I would gladly pay my way through some parts of this setup.
[deleted]
The web is your 3rd mobile OS.
Sure the developing world still needs very cheap phones, and they require software close to the hardware.
But in the developed world phones and tables get closer to a full PC every day. They basically are tiny PCs.
And exactly how the web made Windows and OSX, and Linux less interesting, so it will make the mobile OSs less interesting.
Because even if you can't get close to the hardware, and might require user permissions to access hardware features, still a java script and HTML5 based web app can do almost anything you want on mobile hardware. History keeps repeating itself.
Sure the developing world still needs very cheap phones, and they require software close to the hardware.
But in the developed world phones and tables get closer to a full PC every day. They basically are tiny PCs.
And exactly how the web made Windows and OSX, and Linux less interesting, so it will make the mobile OSs less interesting.
Because even if you can't get close to the hardware, and might require user permissions to access hardware features, still a java script and HTML5 based web app can do almost anything you want on mobile hardware. History keeps repeating itself.
Yeah it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, but two things seem true:
1) Native apps were better than web apps because of native performance was better.
And as you say, we're seeing smart phones become mini PCs. I'm actually typing this on a PC I built years ago on which I still play the latest football and strategy games, but my girlfriend's smartphone has 1 gigabyte more RAM (3gb Nexus), twice as many cores at a similar speed and a 50% higher resolution, for a quick anecdotal example. I know it's apples and oranges technically but smartphones are becoming insanely powerful. And with the web evolving (things like GPU driven CSS animations being commonplace now) the majority of non-game apps are going to run just fine on PC-like hardware on phones in the next years with no performance difference from native. And with WebGL becoming the standard, one can say the same for many games now, too.
2) Native always had more access to the hardware. Things like the contact list, photos, file system, social accounts etc.
Here too we're seeing the web evolve, but we're also seeing hybrid frameworks like Cordova or Ionic become very sophisticated which allow plugins to deal with native features using web technologies. Of course this hybrid app still goes through the app store in which Apple/Google are all powerful. But even on the web we're seeing tons of integrations for the core functionality like accessing the camera.
I think 1) will be a no-brainer, native won't be much better than web. 2) will see a difference for quite some time, but here the difference is shrinking, too. Things like the camera or geolocation have been possible for quite some time.
1) Native apps were better than web apps because of native performance was better.
And as you say, we're seeing smart phones become mini PCs. I'm actually typing this on a PC I built years ago on which I still play the latest football and strategy games, but my girlfriend's smartphone has 1 gigabyte more RAM (3gb Nexus), twice as many cores at a similar speed and a 50% higher resolution, for a quick anecdotal example. I know it's apples and oranges technically but smartphones are becoming insanely powerful. And with the web evolving (things like GPU driven CSS animations being commonplace now) the majority of non-game apps are going to run just fine on PC-like hardware on phones in the next years with no performance difference from native. And with WebGL becoming the standard, one can say the same for many games now, too.
2) Native always had more access to the hardware. Things like the contact list, photos, file system, social accounts etc.
Here too we're seeing the web evolve, but we're also seeing hybrid frameworks like Cordova or Ionic become very sophisticated which allow plugins to deal with native features using web technologies. Of course this hybrid app still goes through the app store in which Apple/Google are all powerful. But even on the web we're seeing tons of integrations for the core functionality like accessing the camera.
I think 1) will be a no-brainer, native won't be much better than web. 2) will see a difference for quite some time, but here the difference is shrinking, too. Things like the camera or geolocation have been possible for quite some time.
Javascript is the new operating system... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzyoT4DziQ4#t=1043
My wife uses her iPad for one thing. The browser.
Needless to say I am very interested in the Firefox phone.
My wife uses her iPad for one thing. The browser.
Needless to say I am very interested in the Firefox phone.
That's not the way the current evidence is pointing. People do like apps and so far the pendulum doesn't seem to be swinging back to the web.
See slides 11 & 30 at http://a16z.com/2014/10/28/mobile-is-eating-the-world/
See slides 11 & 30 at http://a16z.com/2014/10/28/mobile-is-eating-the-world/
What that says to me is that people love and spend most their time on mobile devices. And that they use Apps mostly to access their websites.
I don't think that means they "love" mobile apps. It's just that on mobile, web browsing is an inferior experience. Take a look at this data on the top apps: http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Data-Mine/Top-25-Mobile-App...
Personally, I'd rather use the complete websites than mobile sites or apps. I'd also like to have better choices when it comes to mobile browsers (more on this later). I'd also like to have better tab management on mobile.
Browser choice on Android seems to be Chrome, Firefox and Webviews. Firefox never ran well on my phone and for some reason or another doesn't render sites properly. Webviews based browsers also don't render sites properly and they are lacking support for some web technologies.
Chrome is the only properly working browser on my phone and it always has me logged into Google sites and resumes from my previous session. Every time I use it I feel like I'm naked in a public place. And, every site has to be a longterm commitment as there is no easy way to close multiple tabs.
TLDR:
I use apps mostly because mobile browsing still sucks. I bet I'm not alone with this.
I don't think that means they "love" mobile apps. It's just that on mobile, web browsing is an inferior experience. Take a look at this data on the top apps: http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Data-Mine/Top-25-Mobile-App...
Personally, I'd rather use the complete websites than mobile sites or apps. I'd also like to have better choices when it comes to mobile browsers (more on this later). I'd also like to have better tab management on mobile.
Browser choice on Android seems to be Chrome, Firefox and Webviews. Firefox never ran well on my phone and for some reason or another doesn't render sites properly. Webviews based browsers also don't render sites properly and they are lacking support for some web technologies.
Chrome is the only properly working browser on my phone and it always has me logged into Google sites and resumes from my previous session. Every time I use it I feel like I'm naked in a public place. And, every site has to be a longterm commitment as there is no easy way to close multiple tabs.
TLDR:
I use apps mostly because mobile browsing still sucks. I bet I'm not alone with this.
People do like apps
I do not agree entirely.
Do you people like apps? Or do people like these bookmarks* to things they can get to easily? May even be a web app for all they care, can they just click and get to it.
I do not agree entirely.
Do you people like apps? Or do people like these bookmarks* to things they can get to easily? May even be a web app for all they care, can they just click and get to it.
it's more nuanced than that. The web is now also reponsive websites.
I'm bullish on mobile mostly due to that very presentation. I'm counting the web under mobile.
The graph on slide 11 is pretty clear that the trend is for more time being spent in mobile apps than on the web. Unless you want to take issue with the data, there isn't much nuance there.
To whoever downvoted my earlier comment (if it wasn't the parent), please explain why. I don't have a strong opinion on app vs web so I'm keen to see data.
To whoever downvoted my earlier comment (if it wasn't the parent), please explain why. I don't have a strong opinion on app vs web so I'm keen to see data.
> "For OEMs/handset makers, choice means the ability to do more with software"
Please no, this would only yield to more bloatware. The move of Google is smart, moving the OS away from OEMs. [Most] manufacturers have demonstrated again and again that they cannot be trusted with software, since they only care about profit and putting more and more useless apps into the OS.
We might need more mobile OS, but not for this reason.
Please no, this would only yield to more bloatware. The move of Google is smart, moving the OS away from OEMs. [Most] manufacturers have demonstrated again and again that they cannot be trusted with software, since they only care about profit and putting more and more useless apps into the OS.
We might need more mobile OS, but not for this reason.
Yep. The thesis of this essay is that choice is unequivocally good for users, handset makers, everyone. Experience doesn't play that out. The experience of a curated, pruned garden vs. a wild west scammy bazaar isn't a good one for users.
Here's what happens when you search facebook on Windows Store:
http://imgur.com/QDHcpG0
Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one. Incompetent OEMs can "choose" to override system behavior. After all, Dell, HP & friends were known for really improving the PC software experience.
Here's what happens when you search facebook on Windows Store:
http://imgur.com/QDHcpG0
Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one. Incompetent OEMs can "choose" to override system behavior. After all, Dell, HP & friends were known for really improving the PC software experience.
I'm not sure when that screenshot was taken but its probably an exaggeration.
Actual search results: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/search#q=facebook...
You do have a point about a free for all. There was this great blog post about a month ago about someone installing the top 10 free downloads from download.com and the mayhem that ensues.
http://www.howtogeek.com/198622/heres-what-happens-when-you-...
Actual search results: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/search#q=facebook...
You do have a point about a free for all. There was this great blog post about a month ago about someone installing the top 10 free downloads from download.com and the mayhem that ensues.
http://www.howtogeek.com/198622/heres-what-happens-when-you-...
The screenshot was real, but from about a year ago. Maybe things have changed. Here's a blog post showing the cesspool that was search results less than a year ago:
http://www.fixedbyvonnie.com/2014/08/microsoft-windows-store...
http://www.fixedbyvonnie.com/2014/08/microsoft-windows-store...
> The experience of a curated, pruned garden vs. a wild west scammy bazaar isn't a good one for users.
But that is a choice. For example, I would prefer to recommend to my parents a system with more granular control over permissions than stock Android, and a market which is more curated than Google Play. It's fairly absurd that they can send off all of their contacts to some random third party server because they installed a flashlight app.
> Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one.
To avoid that, you want to choose not to have to make that choice, by going to a more curated platform.
I think the key to creating that alternative is by making both Android and HTML5 apps genuinely cross platform. Blackberry, CyanogenMod and/or Sailfish should support the emerging W3C Web API standards and Cordova, and then create a clear target for Android developers to deploy Android apps that don't rely on Play Services.
The real need isn't for a third OS, it's for a real cross-platform development ecosystem, then there will be genuine space for innovation.
But that is a choice. For example, I would prefer to recommend to my parents a system with more granular control over permissions than stock Android, and a market which is more curated than Google Play. It's fairly absurd that they can send off all of their contacts to some random third party server because they installed a flashlight app.
> Choice is great! You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one.
To avoid that, you want to choose not to have to make that choice, by going to a more curated platform.
I think the key to creating that alternative is by making both Android and HTML5 apps genuinely cross platform. Blackberry, CyanogenMod and/or Sailfish should support the emerging W3C Web API standards and Cordova, and then create a clear target for Android developers to deploy Android apps that don't rely on Play Services.
The real need isn't for a third OS, it's for a real cross-platform development ecosystem, then there will be genuine space for innovation.
That screenshot is more a product of bad UI design (no indication of the publisher?) than anything else.
You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one
Those are not the only two categories of apps.
This quote also comes to mind: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
You can "choose" to install a scam app or the official one
Those are not the only two categories of apps.
This quote also comes to mind: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
Even if the publisher is listed, Microsoft reviewers should be vetting logo infringement.
As a developer, sure, become root and install whatever you want. As grandma, just trying to install Facebook on her tablet, do not allow any mistakes. No junkware allowed.
As a developer, sure, become root and install whatever you want. As grandma, just trying to install Facebook on her tablet, do not allow any mistakes. No junkware allowed.
Your screenshot is out of date. Here's what actually happens when you search Facebook on Windows Store:
http://i.imgur.com/crP7LDd.png
http://i.imgur.com/crP7LDd.png
That's pretty funny. It seems that Google and most Android devs don't really like what the OEMs are doing. From one googler's explanation, the OEM really believes that they're offering something that users are asking for or wanting. I have been impressed with some manufacturers that put pure Android on their phones though. Hopefully those phones become more popular and creates a trend.
Not to mention that having more mobile OS's creates a much worse form of "fragmentation" than Android ever had. Imagine having developers write native apps for 5-6 totally different mobile operating systems. If anything that will slow down innovation.
Innovation at the base is welcome in the beginning, until the providers "figure out" what's best (for the most part), but after that you really need to focus on higher levels, that are closer to the end-user and bring the innovation there. For that to happen, and to reach masses of people you need some standardization at the base.
Imagine if we'd all still be arguing about the "innovation" in lightbulb sockets - having different shape, width and height sockets in the market, instead of standardizing on one type of socket that everyone has, and then focusing the innovation on what goes inside the socket (the lightbulb technology itself).
Innovation at the base is welcome in the beginning, until the providers "figure out" what's best (for the most part), but after that you really need to focus on higher levels, that are closer to the end-user and bring the innovation there. For that to happen, and to reach masses of people you need some standardization at the base.
Imagine if we'd all still be arguing about the "innovation" in lightbulb sockets - having different shape, width and height sockets in the market, instead of standardizing on one type of socket that everyone has, and then focusing the innovation on what goes inside the socket (the lightbulb technology itself).
That's just it. People can talk about how we "need" an OS that isn't dependent on Apple or Google services but there are already other options out there that OEMs could (and occasionally do) use and none has seemed to gain much traction or support. Even now can't an OEM fork Android or use AOSP as a base without any Googly stuff while providing their own replacements for gapps?
I honestly don't see a lot of interest in this from the OEMs other than maybe Amazon (which isn't exactly a great example). I'd imagine they don't want to invest the extra resources into that sort of development when they can stick to skinning and questionable add-on software while letting Google or whoever handle the rest.
And as a user, even if I didn't really want the Play Store or whatever, does anyone really expect HTC or Samsung to do better? Best case scenario you end up with questionable Samsung or HTC services instead of Google services. And Google makes their money from software and attached services instead of hardware so at least they have some level of interest in running those services. Everything I've seen so far tells me that OEMs are even worse than the software companies in terms of developing/maintaining an OS or a fork of an existing one.
It would be interesting to see a company that makes their money from hardware getting into the OS space but so far, Apple is the only one that seems to have the resources and interest to do that fairly well while the software companies like Microsoft and Google live and die by convincing OEMs to license their platforms and bring in more customers for associated services.
I honestly don't see a lot of interest in this from the OEMs other than maybe Amazon (which isn't exactly a great example). I'd imagine they don't want to invest the extra resources into that sort of development when they can stick to skinning and questionable add-on software while letting Google or whoever handle the rest.
And as a user, even if I didn't really want the Play Store or whatever, does anyone really expect HTC or Samsung to do better? Best case scenario you end up with questionable Samsung or HTC services instead of Google services. And Google makes their money from software and attached services instead of hardware so at least they have some level of interest in running those services. Everything I've seen so far tells me that OEMs are even worse than the software companies in terms of developing/maintaining an OS or a fork of an existing one.
It would be interesting to see a company that makes their money from hardware getting into the OS space but so far, Apple is the only one that seems to have the resources and interest to do that fairly well while the software companies like Microsoft and Google live and die by convincing OEMs to license their platforms and bring in more customers for associated services.
Windows Phone is not that bad.
Google has done a good job trying to starve WP users of their services, but I think we can all survive without Hangouts (Telegram, etc) and Google Voice (who cares anymore) at this point.
Google has done a good job trying to starve WP users of their services, but I think we can all survive without Hangouts (Telegram, etc) and Google Voice (who cares anymore) at this point.
WinPhone8.x is a fantastic mobile OS. The interface is great. I've dealt with some bugs since switching to the developer preview, but that's to be expected, and my experience running production code was always rock solid.
But the app situation is abominable, and getting worse. The Xbox program seems to have been all but abandoned. Microsoft seems to have largely given up even monitoring the app store; half the top/new games on the lists for the last several months have been blatantly pirated material, either blatant copies of whatever iOS/Android fad is running at the moment, or actual emulator ROMs of old console games running in a buggy, half-broken wrapper. They don't even have an actual category for reporting copyright infringement on the report form.
They've also made some missteps on a fair few occasions regarding their own apps, especially with the move to 8.1; replacing or breaking the existing functionality like the Xbox Games portal and the Music app.
On the technical side, there's also some issues regarding app support and limitations on both hardware and software. Manufacturers have to agree to very strict tech specifications in order to license WP, so very few other than Nokia have ever bothered to take them up on it. WP apps are heavily sandboxed and limited in a way reminiscent of pre-multitasking iOS, and the official line from MS seems to be that the only acceptable way to build WP apps is in C# with .NET on Visual Studio. Period. Very grudgingly, HTML5 apps are supported. Other options are possible, but largely only through workarounds, which often are grossly undocumented or hacky. Even MS' own other languages, like VB.net and F# are not officially supported, save as libraries in the latter case. (though again in the latter case, MS seems to not believe anyone should want to build full apps in pure F# at all.)
The OS and the interface themselves are great, and some of those limitations are no doubt part of why by forcing a more predictable environment. But a lot of it just seems to be MS repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot, and I dread to think how much worse it would get if MS had any actual leverage on the market.
But the app situation is abominable, and getting worse. The Xbox program seems to have been all but abandoned. Microsoft seems to have largely given up even monitoring the app store; half the top/new games on the lists for the last several months have been blatantly pirated material, either blatant copies of whatever iOS/Android fad is running at the moment, or actual emulator ROMs of old console games running in a buggy, half-broken wrapper. They don't even have an actual category for reporting copyright infringement on the report form.
They've also made some missteps on a fair few occasions regarding their own apps, especially with the move to 8.1; replacing or breaking the existing functionality like the Xbox Games portal and the Music app.
On the technical side, there's also some issues regarding app support and limitations on both hardware and software. Manufacturers have to agree to very strict tech specifications in order to license WP, so very few other than Nokia have ever bothered to take them up on it. WP apps are heavily sandboxed and limited in a way reminiscent of pre-multitasking iOS, and the official line from MS seems to be that the only acceptable way to build WP apps is in C# with .NET on Visual Studio. Period. Very grudgingly, HTML5 apps are supported. Other options are possible, but largely only through workarounds, which often are grossly undocumented or hacky. Even MS' own other languages, like VB.net and F# are not officially supported, save as libraries in the latter case. (though again in the latter case, MS seems to not believe anyone should want to build full apps in pure F# at all.)
The OS and the interface themselves are great, and some of those limitations are no doubt part of why by forcing a more predictable environment. But a lot of it just seems to be MS repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot, and I dread to think how much worse it would get if MS had any actual leverage on the market.
If they cared to see their app ecosystem grow, they wouldn't charge developers 100$ (which is actually 1$ more than this greedy evil empire of Apple does :)) for a licence you need even to install your app on your own darn phone
MS has changed that screwed up situation to a new store model. IIRC, it's now only $20/year I think, and that includes the ability to produce apps all across the windows landscape, desktop, xbox, etc. Originally, they copied the Apple store model, charged $100 like Apple. The policies were also pretty similiar to Apple's policies.
Good to know. Thanks for the update. Bad taste remained, but better late than never I guess...
I was really aggravated by this. You can't even test shit locally without the license, VS throws a fit and demands you buy one, and then even if you cancel it it flags your install to nag you relentlessly to buy the bloody thing over and over again forevermore.
Remember "Developers! Developers! Developers!"? :)) Whatever happened to it
This uninviting attitude of theirs was one of the reasons why I ultimately became an Android dev (once I decided to move into mobile apps), even though I had C# / WPF background so picking up Windows Phone would be the most natural next step... And Java admittedly sucks in compare to C#
This uninviting attitude of theirs was one of the reasons why I ultimately became an Android dev (once I decided to move into mobile apps), even though I had C# / WPF background so picking up Windows Phone would be the most natural next step... And Java admittedly sucks in compare to C#
It's actually 19$ for individual developers nowadays: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/jj8634...
Really ? Their OS really shines in low cost devices aimed at the developing world(it's supposed to be much better and cheaper than whatever android can achieve). I would imagine a $100 is a substantial barrier for developers there.
In my experience developing for both, Android is much easier to develop for. Part of this is the 3rd party services that support Android (Crash logging, analytics, etc.), but even the Play Store's crash report dashboard is so much better than the half-baked crash reporting the Windows Phone and Windows Store have.
Unless you are developing for iOS you can't have all of the devices your users might have, being able to solve issues remotely is huge. Especially when you are dealing with hardware issues on all of the Windows hardware out there.
Unless you are developing for iOS you can't have all of the devices your users might have, being able to solve issues remotely is huge. Especially when you are dealing with hardware issues on all of the Windows hardware out there.
[deleted]
I think that's for free nowadays.
Part of the problem with the app situation is due to MS themselves. They've treated the independent developer as a second class citizen, compared to large corporations. Large companies get access to undocumented apis and much more consideration and technical support than indie devs. It's easy to see that indie devs are second class citizens in the MS app space.
Indeed; my wife has a Windows phone and loves it, especially the built in approach to organisation / calendars / contacts / unified social media view. She uses almost zero third-party apps on it.
It should get better after Windows 10 comes out. First party applications, including xbox, are getting revamped and third party apps should be even easier to make. Hopefully it will turn out that way.
I'm been using a Windows Phone for 1 month (from iOS). Surprisingly, the pure OS part is not bad at all (even with some perks like BT aptX, default maps app with offline mode). Store is missing a bit of stuff (mostly first class games) but I was able to find a replacement for everything else.
And one thing huge (IMO): the performance/price is pretty amazing with the low/mid level entry Lumia.
(I have the Lumia 735, iPhone 5 before).
And one thing huge (IMO): the performance/price is pretty amazing with the low/mid level entry Lumia.
(I have the Lumia 735, iPhone 5 before).
I'm amazed that anyone going from an iphone would find the Windows phone to be acceptable. I would agree that the price/performance is pretty good for the low end Lumias. I have the 530 which I got for only $35, half off during the last Christmas season. I would not have paid full price for that phone though. Windows phones actually lost marketshare during 2014, so they had a fire sale at the end of the year.
It's not the worst certainly, but after a few months of daily use I concluded that the OS was mostly tuned for the show-room (read mobile-phone store) rather than actual use. It was slick, with really pleasing touches all over the place, but I felt the core functionality was lacking.
I don't think WP lacks core functionality. It's the best looking phone OS today IMHO. But the design limits you to using only a few apps before it gets unwieldy. It's suitable for the casual smartphone user, not the power user.
"Google has done a good job trying to starve WP users of their services"
I don't think Google has done anymore than MS to cripple WP. With WP, you can use Bing maps, Outlook, skype, cortana and all of the other MS apps that MS fanbois love. Only thing is, the implementation of their own services isn't as good as Google's services. A friend of mine is a MS fanboi, and he was shocked at how bad WP was.
I don't think Google has done anymore than MS to cripple WP. With WP, you can use Bing maps, Outlook, skype, cortana and all of the other MS apps that MS fanbois love. Only thing is, the implementation of their own services isn't as good as Google's services. A friend of mine is a MS fanboi, and he was shocked at how bad WP was.
Gmail only has a very limited public API, which (according to Google) isn't enough to make a fully fledged email client. So non official Gmail apps futz it with IMAP, which doesn't logically map to search based email.
I have a Lumia 830 and Windows Phone has some unconventional NFC implementation so it won't (ever?) work with the YubiKey.
Apple can get away with this, but Windows Phone certainly can't.
Apple can get away with this, but Windows Phone certainly can't.
I got a 630 for the alternative number I use, and was quite impressed with it, specially in regards to the Android devices on the same price range.
Call me biased, but Firefox OS makes the web run on 25$ smartphones, is fully open and customizable because it's the web, has the biggest "app store" of the world because it runs any web app, is totally royalty-free (just like the other Mozilla projects), and is already being shipped on lots of devices all around the globe. How's that for an open, unlocked and innovation-friendly alternative?
> 25$ smartphones
Where do I get a 25$ Firfox smartphone?
> has the biggest "app store" of the world because it runs any web app
How many web apps are ready to run offline, e.g. in the subway?
> is totally royalty-free
yes of course and not any patents from Apple, Google, Lenovo/Motorola will be used
> is already being shipped on lots of devices all around the globe
again where?
I like the Firefox very very much but we need someone with money and power to push and even then I doubt that it will be a succes, just look at Microsoft, they have an excellent product but they can't get a foot into the door and again on Firefox OS you need dedicated apps too even if they are web apps.
Where do I get a 25$ Firfox smartphone?
> has the biggest "app store" of the world because it runs any web app
How many web apps are ready to run offline, e.g. in the subway?
> is totally royalty-free
yes of course and not any patents from Apple, Google, Lenovo/Motorola will be used
> is already being shipped on lots of devices all around the globe
again where?
I like the Firefox very very much but we need someone with money and power to push and even then I doubt that it will be a succes, just look at Microsoft, they have an excellent product but they can't get a foot into the door and again on Firefox OS you need dedicated apps too even if they are web apps.
It's just the reviews on such low cost phones runing FFoS are pretty bad, and once you climb to $65 or $100 , windows phone and android offer much better alternatives.
Most of these reviews are unfair (comparing a 25$ FxOS to devices at 2x the cost or more) but you make a point about FxOS not being attractive for higher-end. That's part of why it's currently being reinvented.
Is there anywhere to buy a $25 Firefox phone? I'd like to get one to try developing on, but can't find any info about purchasing any Firefox phone in the USA.
We already have a 3rd mobile OS, it is called Windows Phone and is doing quite well (actually more than iOS) in a few European countries.
[deleted]
Pretty much only Finland, really, and that's because of the local Nokia brand loyalty and aggressive local pricing. With MS axing the Nokia brand, I see Samsung picking up the slack easily if they dare to compete on price like they do in other countries rather than trying to angle as a luxury brand. I'm already starting to see a lot more Galaxies and iPhones on the street in Helsinki and Tampere these days.
No, unless it changed the southern countries have a lot of them.
Windows Phone are the only alternative to Android, when you are buying pre-paid phones and not willing to shell out more then 500 euros for a mobile phone, when earning 400 euros on average.
Even the contracts are not an option for such users.
Windows Phone are the only alternative to Android, when you are buying pre-paid phones and not willing to shell out more then 500 euros for a mobile phone, when earning 400 euros on average.
Even the contracts are not an option for such users.
Fair enough. I haven't kept up with the numbers in a while.
I can certainly understand the price issue, it's the reason I went with a WP here in Finland: My Lumia 1320 was only 300€. Nothing comparable for Android or iOS was available for less than twice that.
I can certainly understand the price issue, it's the reason I went with a WP here in Finland: My Lumia 1320 was only 300€. Nothing comparable for Android or iOS was available for less than twice that.
It's really great to have Windows Phone around, but I think the article calls for a more open and experiment-friendly alternative where you don't have to go "through the interests and lenses of the two dominant players" to innovate (making it "three" doesn't help).
My biggest hope is that breaking the duopoly makes it essential that someone cracks the nut of cross-platform development - and hopefully forces the focus back onto web apps or a similar open technology.
Firefox saved us from an Internet Explorer world. This time round it seems that we need more than just one caped crusader.
Firefox saved us from an Internet Explorer world. This time round it seems that we need more than just one caped crusader.
"Firefox saved us from an Internet Explorer world. This time round it seems that we need more than just one caped crusader."
Or a whole lot more people joining us in the fight. Mozilla is as capable as you all make it.
Or a whole lot more people joining us in the fight. Mozilla is as capable as you all make it.
And Android saved us from an iOS only world.
Tizen, Firefox OS and Ubuntu are probably the candidates, but I think Tizen has a combination of things going for it:
1) It's not based on AOSP (unlike Firefox OS)
2) Supports both native and HTML5 apps (Firefox OS apps are limited to HTML5)
3) Backed by Samsung, still a powerful hardware player in most markets. Both Firefox OS and Ubuntu [have had/will have] a tough time getting device manufacturers to adopt their OS, but Tizen doesn't have that problem.
1) It's not based on AOSP (unlike Firefox OS)
2) Supports both native and HTML5 apps (Firefox OS apps are limited to HTML5)
3) Backed by Samsung, still a powerful hardware player in most markets. Both Firefox OS and Ubuntu [have had/will have] a tough time getting device manufacturers to adopt their OS, but Tizen doesn't have that problem.
Sorry but I don't buy into Tizen.
They already did a full native API revamp a few times, with no upgrade path every time it was done.
First they threw out the APIs they got from Meego and replaced with straight Bada C++, then they did a facelift, but kept the Bada feeling to the APIs[0], now C++ is out the door and one is supposed to use EFL with C.
Also the documentation leaves a lot to wish for.
[0] Similar to the Symbian C++ dialect, dual step initialization, handles, macros for exceptions
They already did a full native API revamp a few times, with no upgrade path every time it was done.
First they threw out the APIs they got from Meego and replaced with straight Bada C++, then they did a facelift, but kept the Bada feeling to the APIs[0], now C++ is out the door and one is supposed to use EFL with C.
Also the documentation leaves a lot to wish for.
[0] Similar to the Symbian C++ dialect, dual step initialization, handles, macros for exceptions
Yeah, sounds bad. The constantly changing API is just too much to keep up with.
Just on point 3, it's not really a matter of getting device vendors to use it. I think it's pretty clear today that incumbent platforms live and die by the quality of their apps and the app delivery and discovery mechanisms.
By extension that means the quality of the developer environment, APIs, device functionality you can use, and related tooling.
Tizen is nothing without that. Samsung Mobile picking it up for 1, 10 or 100 handsets doesn't guarantee success.
By extension that means the quality of the developer environment, APIs, device functionality you can use, and related tooling.
Tizen is nothing without that. Samsung Mobile picking it up for 1, 10 or 100 handsets doesn't guarantee success.
It's true that sales volumes are not guaranteed,
but what I meant was that because of Samsung, Tizen is in a position to atleast circumvent the chicken and egg problem that dogs any new mobile OS.
Manufacturers hesitate to bring out devices with a new OS until there is enough developer and user mindshare, but developer and user mindshare grow only when there are enough competitive devices on the market.
Right now, Firefox OS is found only on some low to mid range devices. Ubuntu OS did not even hit the crowdsourced funding target last time. Tizen is in a better position to circumvent this, if Samsung commits to Tizen (which I don't see them doing at the moment) and avoids making the same mistakes as Bada.
Manufacturers hesitate to bring out devices with a new OS until there is enough developer and user mindshare, but developer and user mindshare grow only when there are enough competitive devices on the market.
Right now, Firefox OS is found only on some low to mid range devices. Ubuntu OS did not even hit the crowdsourced funding target last time. Tizen is in a better position to circumvent this, if Samsung commits to Tizen (which I don't see them doing at the moment) and avoids making the same mistakes as Bada.
The only Tizen phone out in the wild has had some bad reviews. I think Samsung is committed to Tizen for at least a couple more years, mainly as a foil to Google Android, as Samsung has stated repeatedly.
There's also Salifish OS (https://sailfishos.org/). AFAIK, it's open source except the UI. Personally, I'd love to see a true open source OS succeed, but I don't believe it will happen.
There is still a little bit more closed source than only the UI [1]. However, the folks at Jolla are quite committed to open-sourcing as much as possible.
[1] http://jollafr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/oss-vs-nonoss....
[2] http://merproject.org/meetings/mer-meeting/2014/mer-meeting....
[1] http://jollafr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/oss-vs-nonoss....
[2] http://merproject.org/meetings/mer-meeting/2014/mer-meeting....
I think the system will eventually implode. I'm actually here after my app got arbitrarily rejected by apple and I found Paul Graham's essay on how apple treats developers. I've spent the last year of my life learning iOS, first OC, then swift. I've dedicated thousands of hours developing, promoting, and even helping aspiring iOS developers on SO. I have been a loyal customer, developer, and investor, but today I sold all of my stock and pledged to never develop for or buy apple products again. It's just not worth it. We've all heard the saying the customer is always right, but in this industry it should be the developer is always right. The current system we have harms developers. Yes google and apple have incentives to keep it closed, but they can't hold forever. Although many will argue they are dead, I think web-apps will take over as more system Apis are supported.
I'm not sure what the article is asking for exactly, we've had a third OS for quite some time.
We had Blackberry, iOS, and Android; now we have legitimate Windows Phone adoption, iOS, and Android; and if one of those three should die, we have FirefoxOS to fill in the gap.
We had Blackberry, iOS, and Android; now we have legitimate Windows Phone adoption, iOS, and Android; and if one of those three should die, we have FirefoxOS to fill in the gap.
That sounds like a great way to increase fragmentation. Even the current duopoly situation is, to me, an anomaly and a general waste of resources, only existing because of how powerful are the backers and interests of both mobile OSes. These are two incredibly rich players in a fight for survival, which is why the market hasn't been completely overrun by one of them.
I'm sorry to say that, but if you want to get more choices and freedom, the most likely course to succeed is the legal one. Once the prominent player is attacked with anti trust litigation, they'll open up whatever needed to quiet things down. That being said, Google is pretty good on openness from the first place.
Another mobile OS would just mean an awful experience for users, fragmentation for developers and a temptation for device makers to create crap user experience. In terms of resources, if you want to see the mobile market moving forward and not sideways, better invest precious developer efforts in content and functionality, not on more cross platform madness and reinvention of the wheel.
Finally, users get a better experience when things are curated. No one can argue Apple's model doesn't work. People are less concerned about what they can do with their phones, and more concerned about what they actually do with their phones, which is why quality and polish win every time over choice and openness.
I'm sorry to say that, but if you want to get more choices and freedom, the most likely course to succeed is the legal one. Once the prominent player is attacked with anti trust litigation, they'll open up whatever needed to quiet things down. That being said, Google is pretty good on openness from the first place.
Another mobile OS would just mean an awful experience for users, fragmentation for developers and a temptation for device makers to create crap user experience. In terms of resources, if you want to see the mobile market moving forward and not sideways, better invest precious developer efforts in content and functionality, not on more cross platform madness and reinvention of the wheel.
Finally, users get a better experience when things are curated. No one can argue Apple's model doesn't work. People are less concerned about what they can do with their phones, and more concerned about what they actually do with their phones, which is why quality and polish win every time over choice and openness.
[deleted]
Apps that I explicitly installed on my Nexus 5: Chrome-to-phone, Chromecast, Google Drive (maybe that one came installed?), a metronome, and WhatsApp.
What I'm getting at, is that apps interfaces are generally better than web pages or "web apps", but everything else about them sucks. They nag you constantly with updates and unsolicited request to do some action, require to think about permissions, and crash often.
What I'm getting at, is that apps interfaces are generally better than web pages or "web apps", but everything else about them sucks. They nag you constantly with updates and unsolicited request to do some action, require to think about permissions, and crash often.
Does this argument parellel Linux vs Windows vs OSX to anyone else?
I think the main problem is going to be getting people to develop for an alternative OS. MS had a paid developer per unique app program, which was called desparate by some. Comments here state that license to develop for the WP is a $100??? Jeez, I wonder what their growth team is thinking.
Developers are highly sought after, experimenting is fun, but a lot of people are looking for stable jobs either from the beginning or they want to try a start up / own their own business first. This is also a common problem with trying new programming languages, why choose a new one when established languages have large user base, jobs are plentiful, and not much worry it's going to be abandoned 2 years down the line?
There has to be incentives to overcome these barriers to gain large spread adoption. At the end of the day a lot of it comes down to livelyhood. Will a person risk time devoting on something new? If a person starts a company on this new OS, will other developers take that risk to join? Will the clients/customers be willing to make that switch?
I think the main problem is going to be getting people to develop for an alternative OS. MS had a paid developer per unique app program, which was called desparate by some. Comments here state that license to develop for the WP is a $100??? Jeez, I wonder what their growth team is thinking.
Developers are highly sought after, experimenting is fun, but a lot of people are looking for stable jobs either from the beginning or they want to try a start up / own their own business first. This is also a common problem with trying new programming languages, why choose a new one when established languages have large user base, jobs are plentiful, and not much worry it's going to be abandoned 2 years down the line?
There has to be incentives to overcome these barriers to gain large spread adoption. At the end of the day a lot of it comes down to livelyhood. Will a person risk time devoting on something new? If a person starts a company on this new OS, will other developers take that risk to join? Will the clients/customers be willing to make that switch?
I think the main problem is that if you want to play in the mobile space, you must invest heavily in lawyers:
http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/1153292 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-i...
It's not the walls that keep people out, it's the sharks.
http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/1153292 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-i...
It's not the walls that keep people out, it's the sharks.
[deleted]
Think about the type of deep integration that Apple-owned
Siri has on iPhones, or Google-owned Gmail has on stock
Android phones, for instance. Those apps operate much more
contextually and fluidly, and far more powerfully, on
those phones than 3rd-party apps downloaded from an app
store would.
While I understand the point about Siri, Gmail (of all the Google apps) seems like a terrible example of the same thing on the Android side (Maps and its incestuous relationship with Play Services might be a better fit). What does Gmail do that Microsoft's Outlook app couldn't do if Microsoft were willing to invest the effort? Maybe I'm missing a feature I don't use, but the best I can come up with is being bundled with the device, but even there if Microsoft struck a deal with, say, Verizon, I don't think there's much Google could do about it.
While I understand the point about Siri, Gmail (of all the Google apps) seems like a terrible example of the same thing on the Android side (Maps and its incestuous relationship with Play Services might be a better fit). What does Gmail do that Microsoft's Outlook app couldn't do if Microsoft were willing to invest the effort? Maybe I'm missing a feature I don't use, but the best I can come up with is being bundled with the device, but even there if Microsoft struck a deal with, say, Verizon, I don't think there's much Google could do about it.
I think a better example for Google's deep integration into android is the "Google Search app" (previously "Google Now") that is sort of a Siri-equivalent: you can talk to it, it can manage your phone, send emails, create new alarms, manage your calendar, assist your transit, even change the temperature at home if you have Nest.
Worth noting that this type of deep integration is totally possible with the Web: you can use many APIs like voice recognition, alarms, etc. "3rd-party apps" from the web can very well integrate deeply with your device, if you allow them.
Worth noting that this type of deep integration is totally possible with the Web: you can use many APIs like voice recognition, alarms, etc. "3rd-party apps" from the web can very well integrate deeply with your device, if you allow them.
This is a classic network effects problem. The two OS's are dominant because they are powerful two sided networks (developers + users) and so breaking the duopoly is that much harder. As is typical with these sorts of networks you really need to solve a problem a user or developer has 10X better than the existing networks do. The few times we've seen this happen on the internet are when the new company focuses on a specific vertical (airbnb to craigslist) and/or is aided by a specific technology wave or breakthrough. I suspect the "third" "mobile" OS will succeed similarly i.e. it will either solve for a narrow use case and blow every alternative out of the water and/or be aided by some new technology. Definitely won't happen via brute force...not 8 years in at least
"For OEMs/handset makers, choice means the ability to do more with software"
Well, that's what Google did with Android but the makers were so bad at it (making the Android worse, not updating...) that Google had to take back control by moving more and more elements to the Play services.
Well, that's what Google did with Android but the makers were so bad at it (making the Android worse, not updating...) that Google had to take back control by moving more and more elements to the Play services.
I think Google had mixed motives - it wasn't just the quality thing, it was that some OEMs were obviously trying to make a platform play of their own.
However the fact that quality was also an issue put me in the very weird position of applauding the increased centralization of Android.
I'm hoping Cyanagenmod can somehow square the circle here.
However the fact that quality was also an issue put me in the very weird position of applauding the increased centralization of Android.
I'm hoping Cyanagenmod can somehow square the circle here.
I think that was more about control than improving quality.
1. There's no chance of a completely different mobile OS succeeding at any point in the near future. An OS needs a huge platform of partners to work, even Blackberry and Microsoft haven't succeeded. The only chance is a fork of Android that can build off their software and apps, but look how hard of a time Amazon has with that. (Though obviously a16z is hoping their company Cyanogen can succeed.)
2. The more OS's there are, the worse it is for companies that have to build apps for multiple systems. It would be easiest if there was just one OS, but like Communism, that doesn't work out. So a duopoly seems like the best compromise.
2. The more OS's there are, the worse it is for companies that have to build apps for multiple systems. It would be easiest if there was just one OS, but like Communism, that doesn't work out. So a duopoly seems like the best compromise.
I agree with you on the first point. I think it might be worthwhile for MS to give up on WP and go all in with their own fork of Android, specifically because of how hard of a time Amazon has had. If MS joined Amazon with their own individual forks between the two of them, along with MS's services that could replace Google Play Services (Outlook for GMail, Cortana for Now, Maps for Maps, etc...) that might capture enough of the Android user base to incentivize Android devs to target all Android app stores and not focus just on Google Play. That would break the duoply not at the OS level but it would mean that Google would have to compete harder to keep Android users on their implementation rather than MS/Amazon/Cyanogen's.
Duopoly? Worldwide, Android's market share has increased from under 60% in 2011 to around 85% by the end of 2013. Likewise, over the same period the iOS market share has gone from around 20% to just over 10%, while all other platforms have dwindled down to the remaining <5%.
http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp
The only sense in which this is still a duopoly is that the iOS platform, while a relatively tiny share of the total market, is still a significant share of paid apps.
http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp
The only sense in which this is still a duopoly is that the iOS platform, while a relatively tiny share of the total market, is still a significant share of paid apps.
What? You haven't heard of Firefox OS? You totally should! Check out this blog post for a small sample of the amazing power of Firefox OS: http://binary-choice.blogspot.com.br/2014/08/firefox-os-is-d...
Seriously, if you want more mobile OSes, but you're not even considering Firefox OS you should probably shut up and start writing your super-powerful-mega-winner OS yourself and stop complaining.
Seriously, if you want more mobile OSes, but you're not even considering Firefox OS you should probably shut up and start writing your super-powerful-mega-winner OS yourself and stop complaining.
There is a viable 3rd ecosystem out there and it is Microsoft Windows Phone.
However, the existence of Windows Phone has proven that developers do not want to support more than 2 mobile platforms. It creates a barrier for entry and support updates if you want to keep all of your platforms at parity.
As a result, the fate of any 3rd ecosystem is a slow non-growth existence in the froth of the industry platform churn.
However, the existence of Windows Phone has proven that developers do not want to support more than 2 mobile platforms. It creates a barrier for entry and support updates if you want to keep all of your platforms at parity.
As a result, the fate of any 3rd ecosystem is a slow non-growth existence in the froth of the industry platform churn.
We had one. It was called WebOS.
Too bad that bad execution and implementation killed it before its time. =(
Too bad that bad execution and implementation killed it before its time. =(
Did the open-source project go anywhere?
Not really.
WebOS (or a variant) seems to be in LG TVs, http://www.cnet.com/news/hands-on-with-lgs-webos-smart-tv-is...
LuneOS is probably more applicable. http://pivotce.com/2014/09/01/official-release-of-luneos-and...
LG hasn't given me a TV to hack on =) so I have no idea how much things have changed under the hood. I liked the Samsung TVs till the recent overly invasive creepiness (mic, ads etc.) Maybe I'll get a LG next time.
LG hasn't given me a TV to hack on =) so I have no idea how much things have changed under the hood. I liked the Samsung TVs till the recent overly invasive creepiness (mic, ads etc.) Maybe I'll get a LG next time.
What happened to fixing the desktop monopoly? Two decades with Microsoft >= 90% of the desktop. It wouldn't matter if it was Apple with 90%. One company with that much market share hurts innovation.
I went from webOS to BB10. The market still offers us options (for now).
There are Windows Phone and BlackBerry 10 that are both excellent OSes.
BB10, yes. WP, not so much. It may be better than the older Windows mobile, but not really in the same class as iOS and Android.
It's a shame Blackberry's new OS didn't take off...
Really. I liked the hardware and BB10 very much. They had lots of unique and innovative features which would've made Blackberrys a viable 3rd OS.
The Blackberry Classic would have been an excellent phone five years ago. Unfortunately, they've been playing catch up to Apple and Android OEMs for almost a decade.
> We Need to Break the Mobile Duopoly
Yes, we all know this—maybe the OP wouldn't mind also to tell how we or whoever should break this duopoly if even Microsoft is not able to.
Yes, we all know this—maybe the OP wouldn't mind also to tell how we or whoever should break this duopoly if even Microsoft is not able to.
Huh?
I thought he was talking about AT&T and Verizon.
I thought he was talking about AT&T and Verizon.
My thought as well. And a vastly more interesting conversation to have.
My sense is that with ubiquitous WiFi and IP based protocols, I can ditch my Smartphone for most uses, and with it the massive amounts of intrusion and data surveillance it represents. A small "feature phone" (with vastly superior battery performance) for general comms, and functioning as a modem in a pinch, with a tablet that's used in a cache-and-burst mode most of the time, and with more continuous connectivity where that's available.
Mobile phone operators are well on the way to making themselves obsolete.
My sense is that with ubiquitous WiFi and IP based protocols, I can ditch my Smartphone for most uses, and with it the massive amounts of intrusion and data surveillance it represents. A small "feature phone" (with vastly superior battery performance) for general comms, and functioning as a modem in a pinch, with a tablet that's used in a cache-and-burst mode most of the time, and with more continuous connectivity where that's available.
Mobile phone operators are well on the way to making themselves obsolete.
He's a VC so he probably thinks that $10 a GB is cheap.
I say that he's looking in the wrong place because to "democratize the mobile operating system" is to ignore a critical part of what makes mobile worthwhile. All those cloud services and apps that do useful things for you. How about we democratize the cloud instead? There should be no real reason I can't point my iOS device at my own infrastructure to co-ordinate sync, backup and sharing of all my stuff (instead of iCloud). Must I sign up for yet another third-party service/app just to provide me with an incremental feature? Why can't I just install apps into my own little cloud backend that my phone can connect to and do useful things for me? Have that be open for developers to target and maybe I can pay them for their work. Then it matters less what physical hardware I happen to be using. Of course, you can only access the plethora of sensors with a native app but most services I use don't need this much context. In any case, this is a concept many people are beginning to advocate for with a variety of reasons. FWIW, some of us are taking a clean-slate approach to tackle the distributed systems issues http://amirchaudhry.com/brewing-miso-to-serve-nymote/