Apple licensed Exchange from Microsoft. It’s the epitome of closed MS technology!

Again: I don’t think native software is going to be the deal maker and deal breaker you think it must still is. The future will bear out which is the more important. If there are viable platforms with no one Windows sized behemoth: the web wins. If we’re partying like it’s 1989, then it’s native apps.

You make great points.

Android is much better then Active X and proprietary Microsoft technology.

Apple will try to make OS X the platform of choice. It is used throughout all of their lineups in one form or another.

But if perchance, Android would take off and become the de facto standard of software development, Apple could add Android to OS X, so that iPhone could have both OS X and Android. This would be similar to how Macs have Mac OS X and Windows compatibility in one machine.

I can see Apple, if necessary, using and supporting an open software project (like Android), especially if no one company controls it outright. In contrast, Steve Jobs would rather turn over in his grave than license Microsoft technology to give Microsoft control of an industry (like music, phones, mobile, media, set-top box, etc.) with proprietary technologies.

But I’m sure Apple would rather OS X have more of a leadership role, as OS X is a core part of Apple’s value proposition throughout their product lines.

Apple seems to be in a great position, especially now that they are aggressively growing their iPhone position in the smart phone space. Doing so will insure a key place for OS X in that space. It would be strategically important to Apple to keep OS X relevant.

Frankly, as I’ve said in a previous entry, I’m less concerned about the iPhone platform as I was before.
1) Apple has gotten the App Store up and running. It will get critical mass before anyone else gets a chance to challenge it.
2) Apple has signaled that they will aggressively try grow the iPhone base. Dropping the price to $199 shows that they are serious about growing their iPhone business.
But I won’t close my eyes to the challenges that can come from competing platforms, if and when anyone else gets their act together to challenge Apple.

For there to be a DOS effect for phones, there has to be an ecosystem of phones that are as free and flexible as PCs are. As long as the carriers call the shots, that’s not going to happen.

But SJ just kept developing his vision, and now it is
bearing fruit big time. The Revenge of Nextstep.

Sure there’s serious competition this time again,
but the difference is it’s no longer in the same
league as the OSX. SJ’s got his Ferrari firing on
all cylinders. The Model T’s had better watch out.

I think Gates retired so he could quit while MS was
“still ahead”. There’s a steamroller bearing down
on them, and it’s called Apple. Just keep watching.

The part Google brought to those iPhone apps was all on the server. They’re built using the general purpose Google web services API from what I’ve heard. In other words: Google’s general purpose backend (which any platform can use) was given a good interface by Apple using their own code.

Google just haven’t made any Microsoft style proprietary move in all of this.

Android seems to be their way of ensuring the following:
1. Smartphones with rich web browsers really take off
2. That Microsoft aren’t the ones who do it
3. So that open standards win and ActiveX etc. don’t dominate the next age of the internet

Apple are already doing a lot of that for them with the iPhone. But Google don’t want to bet their whole future on Apple, and as we all know Apple won’t licence the iPhone out to cloners so there would always still be space for other platforms. Other platforms like say Windows!

So Google are doing this themselves. To keep the web open, so that they can prosper from it, instead of winding up as more roadkill in the trail of Microsoft.

As for native software in general: I really do think you’re overestimating it’s power now. Your argument hinges on native apps being the Number One deal-breaker which the mass of consumers will ultimately decide trumps all else.

I don’t discount the significance of the App Store. Apple are being smart and making sure that the iPhone has the lead on native software too … plus raking in a pretty penny. But if the games and apps available for the iPhone right now were all on Blackberry instead, for instance, would the iPhone 3G be struck dead cold?

Nope.

Native apps are a factor in the equation. But one whole hell of a lot smaller than they were back in the DOS days. Internet, internet, internet!

Good observations.

1) I agree none of the players will cede any control to Microsoft in the mobile space. Both Apple and Google will use standards-compliant technologies across their software solutions.

2) The web space in the Android-OS X space will be much more standards complaint than anything Microsoft would come up with, and mostly cross-compatible.

However,
3) OS X is not directly compatible with Android, which is Linux-based, at this time. Unless either Apple or Google or both make a determined effort to create compatibility, developing apps for both will require more effort than developing for just one platform. Therefore the marketplace will determine how much effort and funds are spent developing apps for either platform or any other.

Google made much of the original basic nifty OS X software (maps, you tube, gmail, search, etc). They debuted first on iPhone because that was the only real game in town. When Google has Android up and running, don’t expect them to make their software on iPhone first unless iPhone has many more eyeballs than their own Android. The same would be true of most other developers small and large. Google might even prefer to develop for their own platform first, calling it experimentation and research, to then deploy on iPhone later, even if iPhone is a much larger market.

Non-internet native OS specific development will not be compatible between platforms. Developers will be drawn to the larger pool, with the hopes of selling more software to more people. More developers will reinforce the larger market. It would be a classic network effect.

The most variety of software and the first to markets will for the most part go to the winner of the platform wars, even if 2 or more platforms exist.

Apple can hope that for several years, the players in the smart phone space will compete with each other and resist platform consolidation. In that case, it will give Apple more time to achieve market dominance in the smart phone space with their iPhone offering. It will take years for the others to match Apple’s phones, let alone any thought of besting them.

My concern is that a Android-like platform can give smaller less able competitors the chance to approximate Apple’s phones in function if not design or interface elegance.

Some even argue that the clean design is fairly easy to copy by going to frog design or other design houses. Most smart phone since the debut of the iPhone are increasingly looking more and more like the iPhone.

Apple’s current rush to market is likely due to their desire to create and consolidate their market dominance before the others have a chance to catch up.

Apple might just pull off another iPod-like business dominating iPhone business in the smart phone space. But they have to act quick to make the network effect forces work in benefit of the iPhone instead of working against it. More iPhone sells more App Store apps. The availability of more App Store apps sells more iPhones.

For now this network effect will work for the iPhone. My whole point is that this network effect could in the future work against the iPhone, but only if enough sales of smart phones 1) outnumber those of the iPhones, 2) they are on the same common or compatible platform(s) and 3) they are real smart phone with full Internet access, plus a development environment for software development across the range of smart phone that make up the total.

Time will tell which way it goes.

ActiveX is indeed evil. But guess what? Google have no interest in preserving it. What you observe about platform-specific web apps above (i.e. IE!) is all the direct effect of Microsoft’s doing. MS rightly felt that the web would be the next big challenger to their Windows platform, and tried to force proprietary hooks: chief among them ActiveX.

The fact that Internet Explorer exclusive outfits have been moving to support Firefox of late is itself a huge sign. Firefox is still a minority browser. They’re not being forced by a leviathan. And if they want mobile access at all, you bet they’ll be supporting WebKit’s open standards, shared by Firefox and IE7+ (to an extent!).

Strike number two is that Android is using WebKit for its browser … *the* keystone app. WebKit = Safari’s back end too. What works in Android should work on iPhone, and vice versa.

The fact is, we’re still in early days with the web. Most of the world doesn’t even have computers, and those which do are still dominated 10:1 or so by Windows …most of those on IE. The iPhone alone will erode this. The Mac is too, and if Android can be the second best smartphone platform: you better bet demographics are on the move.

Most of humanity do not have computers. But a much larger chunk (maybe even 50% from what I’ve heard) already have cellphones. Over time they’re going to be able to move up to smartphones, accessing the rich web on their countries surprisingly well equipped mobile networks. Think of the possibilities moving forward!

Note how the Oracles and Bank of Americas are writing web apps and/or native apps for the iPhone. Right now the iPhone is the go to mobile platform. All I’m saying is that another competitive platform can siphon away development efforts. You correctly observe that such a loss could be somewhat counter-balanced by web apps which hopefully ought to be universal.

Even web apps are not truly universal. I’m still unable to make payments on my EZ-Pass toll tag account with Safari on my Macs, Safari on Windows PCs, and of course any iPhone (Safari-only). The web site only works with Explorer and with Firefox; however with Safari-only iPhone I’n totally out of luck.

When I sent EZ-Pass an email explaining that I had to wait nearly an hour for my credit card payment to be confirmed before I gave up, I made the mistake to mention that it worked in Firefox.

Their response was congratulations that I was able to fix my problem. They completely ignored the only point of my note that their web service did not work in Safari and therefore would not work on my iPhone.

If 80-90% of smart phones are using Google’s Android, or some other common platform, my pleas for support will not be as considered as if the iPhone alone commands 60-70% of the smart phone market –iPod style.

Most enterprise software has gone to the web. Much of it still doesn’t work with Mac without Parallels AND Windows AND Internet Explorer for Windows. Forget about using Safari or being able to access it with an iPhone.

For example one industry, real estate, can stand in for virtually any other vertical industry with enterprise software. The MLS systems which are the back bone of information sharing in real estate have gone to the web for nearly a decade. Unfortunately, the major software vendors in this space have been working closely with Microsoft. The Redmond folks have lobbied very hard for this enterprise software to work only with Internet Explorer for Windows. The developers built in lots of ActiveX, and tied he whole mess to Windows clients. Before Intel Macs and Parallels came along, many of my clients had no choice but to deploy Windows for these mission-critical services.

So yes I accept that the web helps some. The web however isn’t a fix for being on the outside of a common platform, if and when it comes into existence.

I’m hoping that for at least the next 3-5 years, we will continue to have a number of competing platforms from Apple, Nokia, RIM, Palm, and even Microsoft. For as long as there are several strong players pulling in different directions, Apple will likely stand out from the crowd. If and when most others actually consolidate into one common platform, the dynamics will change.

I wouldn’t mind Apple getting an iPod style market penetration with the iPhone in the smart phone market. I predict that Apple will do exactly that in the mid-term.

Currently in the short-term, Apple is being outsold in North America by RIM and internationally by Nokia. My forecast is that iPhone will pass BlackBerry sales first, likely during the next 12 months. Then they will likely also pass Nokia’s sales.

Apple’s product is excellent and they are developing good distribution channels. So I have no concern about them being able to gain a dominant position in the smart phone market in the mid-term, over the next 1-2 years.

My concern is whether Apple will be able to sustain their market dominance long-term. The cell phone market is a more mature industry with established players, who have a vested interest in their own survival.

The iPhone will not have it as easy as the iPod taking over the immature media player market at the time. The media player market had a bunch of small players, no pun intended, or larger players with small media player businesses.

Will all of these established players in the phone space fight with each other or will they eventually fall into a common development platform? That is the question.