It's interesting that we still look at platforms through the lens of Microsoft's Windows. That was a platform which achieved market dominance and generated huge revenues for its creators by way of significant licensing costs. They then also sold content (typically software - Office and various back end tools) to end users at high cost and ate a huge portion of the overall software market revenue. We view high market share as winning because usually it brings high revenues and that means high margins.
Today we have something that looks a bit like the PC market did in the 80s - lots of competing platforms, some doing well, others not. Android has not yet achieved the market dominance that DOS/Windows did (i.e. 90+ percent) and it certainly isn't generating anywhere near the kind of revenue for its creators, Google, that DOS/Windows/Office/etc did for Microsoft. Most of the revenue instead appears to be going to Samsung, but even that is only a minority of the revenue for the whole market - by far the largest share is going to Apple.
So how do we define Android has having "won"? It has no overwhelming market share, its future looks uncertain (as mentioned in the linked article) and it's only making any serious money for a company that didn't even create it. This puts the claims of winning under serious strain, but they just won't go away.
We should want lots of competing platforms. Competition is good for us. Trying to decide that someone has "won" just so we can be the one who called it most decisively, is stupid and short sighted (but understandable, given the desperation of journalists, who like Microsoft, find themselves having to shout louder and louder to be noticed at all). We should resist another dark age like the one we endured under Windows, before post-PC computing made Microsoft charmingly irrelevant.
Sure it's nice to grind an axe against nasty nasty Apple, or poke fun at Android selling lots of shitty cheap phones made from 2 year old OSes, or to laugh at Ballmer telling us Windows Phone is going to do really well.
It would be nicer if we could recognise that we have multiple really good choices available to us and that is a good thing.
Unfortunately we are selfish, tribal creatures, so our wallets and our social graphs will vote this into a monopoly, just like last time.
Agree with your analysis, but I'm not so sure it will end up with a monopoly. Stickiness amongst iPhone users is very high. I think something like an 70/20 android/iPhone split, with apple taking most of the highest-value users, would be a stable equilibrium - if there is such a thing in such a young market.
What is the point of this article? Android has sold more phones almost since the beginning. So what?
The article announces victory on tablets based on predictions. So far the iPad continues to dominate in reality, though. Again, so what?
The only point of this article seems to be "If you view technology like sports and Android is your team, let's gloat in our victory!" Which is dumb on so many levels.
EDIT:
Looks like OP is just a shill account for this really low quality site.
Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool technology that we all love? What's the point of your post?
Besides that, I think the point was clearly made in the title. What's wrong with viewing tech competitors as sports teams? Do you have a problem with sports?
> Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool technology that we all love?
Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the definition.
> What's the point of your post?
That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned for being a shill for a poor quality site.
> What's wrong with viewing tech competitors as sports teams?
It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products based on what suits your needs and tastes best. Maybe for a period of time there will be one company that keeps doing that perfectly, but you should continue to examine the competition and give them a fair shake. Unlike sports teams.
That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here.
> Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the definition.
That's one definition of discussion. Here's one for talking - "Verb. Speak in order to give information or express ideas or feelings."
The article made many points. However, maybe next time they should notify you so you can judge them first.
>
> That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned for being a shill for a poor quality site.
Well your honor, it seems like the other root commenters on this post were able to find something to talk about from the article.
I wouldn't call it spam. As a matter of fact, I learned something new while reading it. I won't bother telling you what it is because you'd probably attack me with more of your vitriol.
>
> It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products based on what suits your needs and tastes best.
Should? According to you. I hold the view that people should do what they want within reason. You however seem to want to censor anything that you don't agree with.
>
> That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here.
You sound like a know it all asshole bully who got offended because someone stepped on his toe. I can't believe I had to call you out here.
Unix style fragmentation* is inevitable. We already have version fragmentation.
"To make matters worse, the big new players in the Unix market promptly committed major strategic blunders. One was to seek advantage by product differentiation — a tactic which resulted in the interfaces of different Unixes diverging. This threw away cross-platform compatibility and fragmented the Unix market." - http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch02s01.html
The product differentiation did offer some major benefits, though.
It's what allowed IRIX to be used to perform graphics-related tasks that basically couldn't be done before, or on other systems.
It's what allowed SunOS and later Solaris to become extremely powerful workstation operating systems.
It's what allowed AIX and HP-UX to excel as server operating systems.
Only within the past few years (a couple of decades after the so-called "UNIX wars") have we seen Linux getting to the point of being a single system that can cover such vastly different areas sufficiently. Even then, the experience still isn't as smooth as it was on more focused systems back in the 1980s.
There are several things wrong with this analysis. First among them is the supposition that Android is rudderless without Andy Rubin.
Android has won, on mobile handsets, in an explosive way, in the past three years. It is time now to consolidate that victory.
Android has a whole other area to conquer, in tablets, in the workplace, displacing PCs instead of feature phones and failed smartphone platforms. What Google product already dominates in PCs? Chrome browser.
If Google simply knocks the rough edges off the process of becoming a Google Logo and/or Nexus OEM, Android is going to continue to mop up the remaining handset and tablet OEMs and expand into PC OEMs entering the tablet business.
Maintaining the blistering rate of Android versions with meaningful innovation will not be easy, but there are still plenty of units in the handset and tablet world to conquer.
>Either we have a very odd sample (unlikely, broad basket of eCommerce sites), or, well, Android sure as shit ain't dominant.
It is. Just with the wrong crowd: mostly people that don't care much about smartphones and got a low tier Android phone for free with their contracts.
So it has won on volume, but not on the people that matter (both financially, ie those buying with higher margins, and technologically, ie the most tech savvy).
Which also explains why over 50% of Android phones run 1 or 2 years old Android versions.
Today we have something that looks a bit like the PC market did in the 80s - lots of competing platforms, some doing well, others not. Android has not yet achieved the market dominance that DOS/Windows did (i.e. 90+ percent) and it certainly isn't generating anywhere near the kind of revenue for its creators, Google, that DOS/Windows/Office/etc did for Microsoft. Most of the revenue instead appears to be going to Samsung, but even that is only a minority of the revenue for the whole market - by far the largest share is going to Apple.
So how do we define Android has having "won"? It has no overwhelming market share, its future looks uncertain (as mentioned in the linked article) and it's only making any serious money for a company that didn't even create it. This puts the claims of winning under serious strain, but they just won't go away.
We should want lots of competing platforms. Competition is good for us. Trying to decide that someone has "won" just so we can be the one who called it most decisively, is stupid and short sighted (but understandable, given the desperation of journalists, who like Microsoft, find themselves having to shout louder and louder to be noticed at all). We should resist another dark age like the one we endured under Windows, before post-PC computing made Microsoft charmingly irrelevant.
Sure it's nice to grind an axe against nasty nasty Apple, or poke fun at Android selling lots of shitty cheap phones made from 2 year old OSes, or to laugh at Ballmer telling us Windows Phone is going to do really well.
It would be nicer if we could recognise that we have multiple really good choices available to us and that is a good thing.
Unfortunately we are selfish, tribal creatures, so our wallets and our social graphs will vote this into a monopoly, just like last time.