TechDistortion

iPad 2 Tops Consumer Reports Tablet Ratings

Consumer Reports published this report earlier this week and only Android tablet proponents cringe at it. Surely though this isn’t a surprise. The iPad has been shipping for nearly a year now and the iPad 2 for a few months. Apple have aggressively priced the iPad from the get go and the larger form factor is very enticing. Many people are using it instead of a netbook/laptop and many older people are using them as their first computer because of their simplicity. It also helps that it’s been the only real credible tablet on the market so far with its only real competitor being the Motorola Xoom.

The Android Analysis: It's Open for Some Customers...

The recent flurry of words from Google regarding Android and the non-release of Honeycombs source code, followed up by a story I previously wrote about, has now a formal response from Andy Rubin. In recent weeks I’ve been pondering what the problem with Android and it’s openness really is. The problem stems from perspective: the average end-user, the tech-geek, the developer and the hardware manufacturer - covered in reverse order.

Open to the Hardware Manufacturer means: No licencing fees to pay for its usage on your product, and the ability to customise the operating system user interface and applications any way you want to without interference from Google. Is Android open for them? Yes there are no licence fees, but No Google are now going to interfere if you want the latest build.

Open to the Developer means: being able to write whatever application they want and it hosted on the Android Market without being held to a very long list of User Interface guidelines and rules about what APIs they can and can’t use. Seriously though, developers need to make money and if people are buying a lot of Android applications then developers are interested - curation is not as big a deal as they make out. The problem is that iOS is currently leading that charge despite the fact Android has a bigger market share. Is Android open for them? Yes, but in the business of making money, it doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t.

Open for the Tech-Geek means: being able to root, hack and modify the software to make it do what you want it to do. Is Android open for them? Yes. But then, so is iOS if you jailbreak it.

Open for the Average End-User means: being able to install any application you desire from anywhere - like you can on Windows or a Mac. Android phones have an option to allow installation of applications from outside the Android Market. Is Android open for them? Yes.

When Andy Rubin wanted to keep Honeycomb source under wraps they were saying - we’re still polishing the OS and it’s not ready for general use yet. This is a bad sign for software releases, but as I said Google have a bit to learn from Microsoft and Apple about that.

When Andy Rubin wanted more involvement in the decisions of the Hardware Manufacturers tweaking the Android user interface, he wanted to get some control back and in so doing he seriously crimped one of the key reasons Hardware Manufacturers (like HTC, Samsung and Motorola) found Android to be open.

Googles problem is they really have four types of customer - and you can’t please them all. Is it open? For some it is. Without Hardware Manufacturers there would be none of the other three customer types. So the real question is if the Hardware Manufacturers decide that Google is not giving them the freedom they need to make their own software design choices they will go elsewhere to another platform that will. If that happens, Android will die.

Google must tread very carefully now or risk losing its key partnerships that have built Android from nothing.

That said, if this whole Android thing doesn’t work out in the end, hey, Android could end up another Buzz or another Wave. Google don’t care. So long as they keep getting their Ad revenue through search they will never truly care and will tread heavily and however they like - customers, manufacturers and developers be damned.

Google Flexes Its Muscles with Android

A few days ago Bloomberg Businessweek dropped a bombshell of sorts when it broke a story regarding Android entitled: “Do Not Anger the Alpha Android”. In it, Bloomberg stated that: “companies hoping to receive early access to Google’s most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans…from Andy Rubin” (from Google). There is also mention that: “Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon Android devices that make use of… (the) Bing search engine”. These are two different problems I want to explore separately.

Google, like Apple and Microsoft and RIM are allowed to make whatever changes they like to their own Operating System (OS). They can change the terms of their partner agreement anytime they like too - that’s their prerogative though it may come with some fallout. The problem lays with the fact that Google has created the fragmentation problem themselves. They have pushed out release after release in quick succession, given their manufacturers the green light to do what they want with it and they have touted their OS as open. In so doing the phone manufacturers and carriers have flocked to their OS and new Android based phones meant other companies could finally tweak the system they way they wanted. Basing their software on Android meant having a background of apps that will run on their devices but the “heavy lifting” of the OS as it were was left for Google. The attraction to the manufacturers is obvious as there are no real licencing fees to Google for using Android compared to Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 for example or for the cost of developing your own OS in-house. The attraction to carriers is also obvious: they can put whatever software they like on the phone, unlike for the iPhone. More choice for all concerned - it certainly sounds great.

Google has been solely in the business of search for a long time and Android was something Google bought in 2005 and then ran with it making it open source (under an Apache licence) in 2008. Apple and Microsoft have been developing their OSes for quite a bit longer than Google and that means knowing how to avoid fragmentation and amongst other things, providing a better set of development tools and more controlled OS updates. Google has a habit of throwing software projects at the wall to see what sticks like Buzz, and Wave for example. It’s not really an attitude that cuts it for an OS that needs stability and support long term.

Here’s my problem: Google really didn’t think through enough the consequences of their choices. Mistakes made by Apple and Microsoft many years ago were pushed to one side as they went all out to bring their new OS to the masses any enticing way they could - consequences be damned. They created this rod for their own backs - so naturally when it dawns on them that this fragmentation problem is really starting to hurt them they need to put the brakes on. Fair enough. Just don’t expect everyone to let it pass as Google have then started to break some rather key promises about what they wouldn’t do with their OS.

Does it mean Android is no longer open? Of course not. It does however mean that the “skins” that Motorola (MotoBlur) and HTC (Sense UI) in particular were putting on top of Android may have their wings clipped or worst-case could be doomed entirely - we’ll have to wait and see. Googles problem now is trying not to lose the big manufacturers support - especially those two I mentioned as they have been two of the biggest reasons for Androids current success. (Samsung being the third big one)

Now to the Bing controversy. There’s no doubt that Bing is gathering momentum against Google search. Microsoft have thrown a lot of money at Bing and its results are improving. With Windows Phone 7 and Windows 7 having Bing built in and the iPhone supporting it as an alternative to Google, the threat is becoming real. Let’s face it: Google have been virtually unopposed in internet search for a decade now and Bing has been the first really credible threat to them. Given that search is Googles core business it’s fair for them to cut Microsoft out of their mobile OS. In their place, I’d do the same. That said, Bing still has a long way to go before they’re even half the size of Google search, but why let them even get that close if you have the power to prevent it?

It may well come to pass that Microsoft will offer Bing and Yahoo search integrated into their OS (although WP7 Search Centre aimed to change that) and Android will only have Google search integrated. Apple, who has no such search engine business of its own to push (yet) will happily offer whatever you like. The consumer will choose in the end what matters most. If it does become a point of differentiation then the end result is only a positive for the end user as the search companies try to outdo each other to get your business.

Google can do what it likes with Android but this exercise is the beginning of Google flexing its muscles with Android in a way that will inevitably ruffle feathers. If they can pull it off and still keep their key partners then the results will likely be very positive for their OS and therefore also positive for the end user.

I must admit though, I have my doubts about where this is all heading.

The Engadget Crew Move to SB Nation

My previous posts (and here) on the subject have hinted at the Exodus from Engadget being a rather significant cluster. It’s not surprising to me at all that they’ve followed in the footsteps of Ryan Block and Peter Rojas (both formerly of Engadget but now of GDGT) by splintering off to create their own tech site, and David Carr of the New York Times has now confirmed this to be the case.

At first blush many tech-heads probably find the matchup of a new tech site with an all-sport range of web sites to be a bit odd - but use your imagination. People are becoming more and more passionate about tech in the same way people have been fanatical about their sports for many years already. The technology under the hood (as it were) of the SB Nation websites it’s just as much what the old team is after. That said there’s a long way to go yet, but already the new line up appears to be: Joshua Topolsky, Nilay Patel, Chris Ziegler, Paul Miller, Joanna Stern, Ross Miller, Justin Glow and Dan Chilton.

I’ve noticed a significant drop in the number of comments on articles on Engadget over the last few weeks. Whilst anecdotal I would suggest that Engadget will be taking a bigger hit by losing it’s core of bloggers than some may think. It’s hard to build a unique brand and many executives like to think that you can just buy a brand and still make money. For a while AOL did okay off Engadget. But like many companies I’ve dealt with in the past that have been bought, it’s usually not the brand of the company but the people of that company that make it what it is.

I hate that management clique that’s supposed to give employees the warm fuzzies: “People are our greatest asset” or words to that effect. Frankly though it’s usually true. Have a great group of people that work hard and well together and you can build a great brand. Buying that brand then having those great people leave, pretty much guarantees your brand will never regain its former glory - and the reason the brand was bought in the first place.

Personally, I can’t wait till Spring!

(That’s Autumn - aka “The Fall” in the Northern Hemisphere)