OK, now we're speaking more the same language. I'm not budging from my position about what device manufacturers SHOULD be doing -- but I'm under no delusions whatsoever they will change except in response to large-scale market or regulatory shifts, neither of which I foresee producing a noticeable change any time soon. Or maybe, just maybe, some strong-arm tactics from Google; I'll get to that.
But its a dance I've seen played out many times before, in the name of differentiation. Don't get me wrong -- I quite agree with them that product differentiation is vitally important to them. But they're being really stupid about how to go about it. A common marketing mistake is to focus on market share at the expense of market size. Market share is a metric of how well you are doing relative to the other guy, so it's useful feedback, but it is NOT what you want to optimize. It is NOT how many widgets you get to sell, and it is NOT profit margin, and it most definitely is NOT profit. Consider PC hardware device drivers. It took Microsoft about 15 years to figure out that to protect the quality of their OS product, they really HAD to get serious about imposing some serious standards on device drivers. Apple, in the meantime, exercised much tighter control, producing a much more stable environment (in this regard) for developers and consumers. (Let's not delve into why or the relative merits of the two platforms or companies or CEOs). The point is, that there is good differentiation, and there is bad. Bad differentiation is differentiation that harms the ultimate customer, basically. Yes, if you undermine the product in your differentiation, you may be able to do it in a way that locks out the other guy. That doesn't mean it helps your bottom line. Note that lock-out is not the same as lock-in. You can offer a hugely better calendar! Just * Make sure you don't undermine the one that's there. * Make sure it works well with the one that's there, and with software that works with the one that's there * Make sure that the one that's there, and the ecosystem around it, is what's needed to draw customers to the platform. Why? Because you want to sell more devices. Not more than the other guy. More devices, and make more profit. If you do a good enough job at it, you'll make more devices than the other guy. The problem is, differentiation is hard -- both technically and from a marketing standpoint. Because your competitor is doing it too. It's really easy to get into a mindset of "differentiation at all costs", especially when you see your competitors doing it too. And when that happen, entire industries get stuck. If PC component manufacturers had invested some of the money they spent on developing device drivers into a degree of cooperation on standardizing drivers, rather than differentiating themselves on driver-based features, the platform would have been much more stable, and while customers would have had more choices, they'd also have been much happier with those choices. Developers of, say, graphics software would spend far less, and do far more. Customers would have more reason to buy more product. Even if, at the end of the day, it didn't increase profits, it would be worth it. I don't think any carrier or manufacturer wants to be associated with a crappy product, or wants unhappy customers. (They may place profit higher on their wishlist, however). There's precedent. The cellphone business wouldn't exist without tight standards on the RF side. That's both regulatory and practical. But purely voluntary standards on things that address software platform concerns, rather than issues like "can these two devices talk", are much harder to support. It takes a kind of vision that is completely absent in many quarters. Google has it. The carriers don't. And I don't think the handset manufacturers do, either. But pigs can fly. All we need is for Google to build a trebuchet. And a bunch of pig herders to herd the pigs to the trebuchet. It's a little easier than herding cats, but only a little. Removing the core applications from their control is absolutely the right thing to do. The launcher, too, for that matter. I have no problem with them shipping their own launchers, but the reference launcher needs to be available via the Market to help keep them to standards. Basically, make sure that differentiation does not come at the expense of the platform. Anyway, keep on herding those pigs. I'm herding Google. On Aug 3, 2:23 am, Mark Murphy <mmur...@commonsware.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Bob Kerns <r...@acm.org> wrote: > > How are device manufacturers increasing their costs by NOT DELETING > > the core Google app? Is it a matter of license fees to Google? > > Ah, I see where you're going. > > This rolls back to your statements regarding control over the deck. To > mix metaphors, while iPhone (and to a lesser extent Android) have > fired torpedoes and the deck is starting to list to starboard, the > bilge pumps are just about keeping pace. It will be years -- if ever > -- before carriers and device manufacturers let the deck model sink > entirely. They'll say that they view it as being strategically > important, to help differentiate their products from the competition. > In reality, it's a bit that and a bit just plain vanity/ego. > > For example, one device manufacturer (who shall remain nameless) > elected to make a change in core SDK functionality, affecting all > third-party applications across a few of their devices, because one > carrier for one device didn't like the way that SDK functionality > looked on-screen. The carrier thought it looked ugly. As a result, > they stole functionality from many Android apps (not just the handful > that break when they change their contacts database, either). With a > mindset like *that*, the concept that they're going to do *anything* > just because a disorganized lot of third-party developers complain on > mailing lists is unrealistic. > > Your starting position for this debate is what you think should be. My > starting position for this debate is what I'm sure is the current > reality. Hence, the gap. I used to start from your position, until I > started actually working with these firms, which caused me to reset. > There are certain windmills I'll continue to tilt at (e.g., getting > more firmware-replaceable devices), but others, such as this area, I'm > settling for fighting for incremental improvement. > > > Even better would be to fold in their improvements into the original. > > Pigs will fly first. Remember: differentiation is key in their minds. > > -- > Mark Murphy (a Commons > Guy)http://commonsware.com|http://github.com/commonsguyhttp://commonsware.com/blog|http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > Android Development Wiki:http://wiki.andmob.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
