fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

You nicely restated a couple of my main points. Thanks.
1) Linux is bad for hardware/ gadget makers.

2) Linux has worked for service providers: IBM, Red Hat. These companies make their money from servicing.

I made another very important point that you ignored.
3) Linux has a very small share because any commercial outfit that uses Linux as a software base and adds code to it for an innovative solution must turn around and share that code FREELY with all, including their competitors. So smart companies don’t use Linux because they can’t differentiate their products and must give away their code.

I made another extremely important point that you must’ve been sleeping for, because it was the whole point of the comment.
4) The carriers distribute most cell phones in the world. What does that mean. The carriers will do whatever is best for them, not for Google, nor for Apple nor any other cell phone maker. Phones are useful only to sell more cell phone plans.

All carriers, or at least most of them want to sell the iPhone because it is revolutionary and extremely unique. This unique product will bring them more customers, and yes premium customers.

5) If you have a product that sells for half, then you’ll sell twice as many. By cutting out the phone makers profits, the carriers can sell more phones for less and make more profit doing it.

All of the carriers, or at least most of them, would also love to have a very good looking phone that does most of what the iPhone does, but that costs less and sells more units and therefore more service plans. Not having to pay Apple $200-$300 or so in gross profits means the carriers have more money to offset fixed distribution and marketing costs, or to add to their profit column.

These knock-off phones don’t need to look like crap. Any one in the chain (carrier, OEM or Google) can hire frog design (or any other good design firm) to make a very good looking phone. The hard part is to put together the software layer: OS, interface, and apps. That’s the part that Google will contribute. Google makes the OS, interface and basic apps.

Linux may not be the right solution. But there will be a solution because the market desires a solution.

There are many, many carriers. They want to sell many, many phones.

If by selling the iPhone, they sell lots of phones and service plans; then they’ll have the iPhone. If by having the iPhone and other cheaper iPhone-like phone(s); then they’ll sell even more phones than just having the iPhone alone; then they’ll have the iPhone and other cheaper iPhone-like phone(s).

If they can sell enough units, then a very vibrant software development community will develop through natural market forces.

No one has been successful yet because no one has yet made a smart phone/platform that was worthy. Apple has made the first truly great smart phone — the iPhone. Apple has created the plan for everyone — it’s called the iPhone.

Everyone will copy the iPhone — everyone. RIM. Nokia. Samsung. LG. Ericsson, HTC, etc, etc, etc.

The carriers will also want a me too product. This is a market opportunity for someone like Google or Microsoft to step in and provide the software layer.

Microsoft would want to do it in hopes of creating a new platform to which to extend their monopolistic software empire. Google would want to do it to create a built-in market for their mobile ads to generate more ad revenue. Google is even willing to do it FREE. Google has a business model that is consistent with providing FREE software in order to get ad revenue. So this fits.

A FREE software layer done well would provide the industry the most difficult piece to creating an good iPhone competitor that the multitude of carriers would gladly carry.

I wouldn’t call these competitors iPhone killers. If the current path continues, Apple will be technology and innovation leader in the mobile phone space for the foreseeable future. My point is that there will be a space that many entrenched industry players -carriers- will want to exploit. These carriers also control one of the most important pieces of the industry, besides the networks; they control the distribution.

Besides having the best phone and the best platform; Apple also brings their brand and more importantly independent distribution. If Apple didn’t sell phones through their own stores and independent sales channels, then the carriers would have complete control over the distribution of Apple’s phone products. That why Apple it is great for Apple that they sell so many through their own stores. It’ also why Apple set up a distribution deal with Best Buy to sell the iPhone at its’ 986 locations. The more distribution Apple brings to the table, the more valuable its’ relationship to the carriers, and the greater leverage Apple will have in those relationships.

However, those carriers will not want to be beholden to anyone, even Apple. So, the carriers will want to distribute their own phones. This way they can have more of the control. The carriers have increasingly sold more and more private label feature phones. No one, with more than half a brain, would question the carriers’ intention to sell their own private label smart phones as well.

Security is important. That’s one of the many reasons we’ll stick with the iPhone. There are many people who don’t know any better. What else explains why so many PCs ship with blowhole Windows.

DOn’t let any of these other issues (reasons why Apple is better, yes Apple is better) distract you from the real question– Is ther a market for cheap iPhone-like phones. The answer likely is yes.

The reason Apple is running so fast (and making some uncharacteristically sloppy execution mistakes) is because Apple wants to establish such a dominance in the smart phone space that the network effect will work for the iPhone instead of against it. The network effect is working for the iPod and has worked for the DOS/Windows PCs before that.

The mobile phone industry is particularly tricky because the carriers already have so much control. More and more influence will continue to transfer to Apple. But these other players will continue to pull for their own interests, their own shareholders and their profits.

Apple is ahead of everyone else in smart phone technology. But in this mature industry there are so many companies already making money; that want to keep it that way — continuing to make money.

The industry is transitioning to smart phones. This transition is Apple’s chance to do what no one else has been able to do before, which is to exert dominance in the smart phone space, which is the future of the cell phone industry.

Apple’s gain could be a loss for many, who have a vested interest in keeping a piece of the industry for them. Even if Apple completely dominates smart phones, the carriers collectively would want to keep Apple at 50-70% instead of 70-90% of the smart phone market.

The point of my comment is if Apple stays under 50%, say 25-50%, then there’s a chance that other by combining forces can out number iPhones. If these iPhone-like competitors are on the same platform, then network forces will work to help create an industry-wide platform that would slowly drain developers away from Apple’s iPhone OS X. 5-10% here, 5-10% there. As long as they are all on the same platform an add up more than Apple’s iPhones, they wold create economies of scale for software developers foe their platform apps.

Maybe Apple can corner the market with the iPhone, just like they did with the iPod. If the biggest players work against each other, which they likely will; then that gives Apple the best chances. Each large player ( Nokia, Samsung, RIM, LG, PAlm, etc.) will want to control their own platform. They all want a competitive advantage that differentiates their product offerings from all their competitors. That fighting will give Apple more time to establish their products as they standard for the industry.

The Symbian effort was death by committee. Nokia inherits the remains of that mess. No one trusts Microsoft enough to want to turn over their industry to Redmond. They’ve all seen what’s happened to the clones; even IBM gave up their PC business.

Google can step in where Microsoft, and a consortium of some of the industry’s largest players have been unable to accomplish much.

Linux may be the wrong foundation for the eventual solution that solves this market need for a smart phone platform. Google, however, seems to be a good potential match for the provider of the FREE software that would make this platform possible.

On the other hand, you may prefer that Microsoft fill this need through trial and error. They haven’t been able to get it right in 10 years, but now they have Apple to show them what their products need to look like. The Zune convinces some that Microsoft has lost their way, but they have the resources to keep trying. Plus in the phone industry, Apple’s success might push everyone else into the hands of the waiting Microsoft, or as I have proposed Google.

“That game was a mistake. (And ideally should have triggered just such a warning.)”

Agreed, a mistake. But on Apple’s side, for not building in some security measures into the SDK to prevent this. Android would not have allowed this action, if it was not granted by the user during installation.

“But Apple resolved the matter pretty quickly. Don’t forget that they have a central kill switch if anything gets really nasty … while Google does not.”

That kill switch obviously did/would not help in this situation. Once your contact list is transfered, your private data is compromised. Having Apple kill/remove this App several weeks later, does not change this.

Regarding, the potential of social exploits, I agree. But architectural security can help to at least make these exploits more obvious. IMHO, Aurora Feint is a good example of an “partially” social exploit. It is well done (from the gaming perspective), and therefore rated pretty well in the AppStore. In addition it is free of charge, so I downloaded it!
IF the iPhone installer would have prompted me to grant access permissions to my contact list during installation, I would have removed it right away.