One thing I've noticed about Google Buzz is that it's not being used that much to share stories from popular sites like Mashable and TechCrunch. If you run through the archives of these sites and look at the share counts, you'll see that Twitter is king, Facebook is a distant second, and Buzz is an even further third. Sites like Mashable tend to have stories that are shared a lot on social networks, and seeing the low number of people using Buzz can give you an idea of how Google is faring against Twitter and Facebook in the social arena.
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Google Buzz is not trending
One thing I've noticed about Google Buzz is that it's not being used that much to share stories from popular sites like Mashable and TechCrunch. If you run through the archives of these sites and look at the share counts, you'll see that Twitter is king, Facebook is a distant second, and Buzz is an even further third. Sites like Mashable tend to have stories that are shared a lot on social networks, and seeing the low number of people using Buzz can give you an idea of how Google is faring against Twitter and Facebook in the social arena.
Buzz buzz
So is the buzz over Google Buzz done already? Wow, that was pretty fast. Looking at my own Buzz feed, I see a lot of activity from my friends during that first week and now nothing at all. I guess everyone was eager to try it out but then lost interest in the service.
During the first couple of days a bunch of my friends started a couple fun random threads, mostly revolving around the "what the heck is this?" topic. I even used it for some real purpose during a group meeting at school. Our group was interviewing a senior executive via phone conference, and since we weren't all in the same location we needed a way to 'chat' with each other during the phone call to coordinate the follow-up questions. We decided to try out Google Buzz for chatting and to store interview notes. It actually worked out pretty well and helped the two hour event go by pretty quickly (the interview subject was a little dry).
I'm personally not a huge fan of Buzz. I like the technology and the features built into it, but I don't really like the fact that it's hooked up into my Gmail contact list. I shoot out emails to a lot of different people for different reasons and I don't necessarily want to build a 'social network' around some of those people. That's what my Facebook and LinkedIn accounts are for.
There are tons of articles about Google Buzz out right now, but here are some of my favorites:
Pete Cashmore asks: What is Buzz good for? If Facebook is the local bar, and Twitter is the town square, where does that leave Buzz?
Erick Schonfeld talks about the privacy risks of Buzz: "The danger in creating an instant social network around email contacts, as Google Buzz does with Gmail, is that the boundaries between what is private and what is public are not always clear."
And easily my favorite article about Buzz: "Google and Social: Like Nerds at the Dance" by Matthew Ingram, detailing out some of the design flaws behind Buzz and the perils of asking engineers to architect social networking.
During the first couple of days a bunch of my friends started a couple fun random threads, mostly revolving around the "what the heck is this?" topic. I even used it for some real purpose during a group meeting at school. Our group was interviewing a senior executive via phone conference, and since we weren't all in the same location we needed a way to 'chat' with each other during the phone call to coordinate the follow-up questions. We decided to try out Google Buzz for chatting and to store interview notes. It actually worked out pretty well and helped the two hour event go by pretty quickly (the interview subject was a little dry).
I'm personally not a huge fan of Buzz. I like the technology and the features built into it, but I don't really like the fact that it's hooked up into my Gmail contact list. I shoot out emails to a lot of different people for different reasons and I don't necessarily want to build a 'social network' around some of those people. That's what my Facebook and LinkedIn accounts are for.
There are tons of articles about Google Buzz out right now, but here are some of my favorites:
Pete Cashmore asks: What is Buzz good for? If Facebook is the local bar, and Twitter is the town square, where does that leave Buzz?
Erick Schonfeld talks about the privacy risks of Buzz: "The danger in creating an instant social network around email contacts, as Google Buzz does with Gmail, is that the boundaries between what is private and what is public are not always clear."
And easily my favorite article about Buzz: "Google and Social: Like Nerds at the Dance" by Matthew Ingram, detailing out some of the design flaws behind Buzz and the perils of asking engineers to architect social networking.
URL Shorteners: Bit.ly, Goo.gl, Shr.ty
I'm not a huge fan of URL shorteners. Quite honestly, I don't trust them. I like to see exactly where someone is trying to send me, and I can often sniff out a spammy link just by looking at the URL. There was a time when I refused to click on a TinyURL link. But with the rise of Twitter and 140 character limits I've been forced to change my habits as shortened links are pretty much unavoidable these days.For most of the year URL shorteners like Bit.ly and Ow.ly were quiet servants of the internet, not making too much noise and working as well as one would expect them to. This past month however there's been a bit of shake-up with the entry of Google and Facebook into this tiny (pun intended) space. Goo.gl and Fb.me were launched for internal use at each respective company, but it's easy to see how these shortening services might be extended to the general public, especially in the case of Google. How will sites like Bit.ly continue to operate in the face of this tough competition?
What is Bit.ly's value proposition? Right now it's the market leader mostly because it’s the default shortener for Twitter. But before Bit.ly the shortener of choice for Twitter was TinyURL. Twitter was able to change over to Bit.ly without too much disruption, so what’s to stop it from changing providers again? Why wouldn't Twitter create its own shortening service, something like a Twi.tr service?
It's really not too hard to start a URL shortening service. In fact, if I wanted to I could start up my own URL shortening service tomorrow without too much effort. (I would call it Shr.ty). But why would I, when there are services like Bit.ly and Goo.gl out there that will take care of all that for me?
Right now I use Bit.ly because it's the default Twitter shortener and because it seems to be the most 'trusted' service out there (whatever that means). But if Google were to offer its service for free to the public, I would probably use Goo.gl over Bit.ly. Why? Well, because I simply trust Google more than I do Bit.ly. I trust that Google has a small army behind it dedicated to security and data integrity, and I trust that Google has a massive database behind it that will allow it to verify and secure all of the URLs that go through its service. Bit.ly simply doesn't the firepower and data to keep up with Google in this area.
Google can probably also offer better reliability and real-time tracking capabilities than Bit.ly. Interestingly enough, Twitter switched over from TinyURL to Bit.ly earlier this year due to these exact issues. Twitter and Google have already partnered up for real-time search, so why wouldn’t they also partner together for URL shortening and link tracking services?
Bit.ly hasn’t remained dormant throughout all this. Bit.ly responded to Google's entry by releasing Bit.ly Pro and Bitly.tv, premium services built on top of its basic platform. Bit.ly Pro allows web publishers to create custom branded shortened links through its service. Sites like the New York Times (nyti.ms), Foursquare (4sq.com) and Meebo (mee.bo) have already started using this service. Bitly.tv is an analytical service that lets you see what videos are currently going viral on the web. Since a lot of the link sharing these days happens through Bit.ly links, Bitly.tv is a pretty accurate view of what is trending right now on the internet. Expect to see this service expand to cover news events and blogs.
Still, the advantage that Bit.ly would gain from these premium services seems fleeting. There’s no real barrier preventing a competitor like Google from entering and stealing away Bit.ly’s customer base. And if Bit.ly figures out how to monetize its service, they why wouldn't Twitter move into this space? Right now Twitter has no real reason to make its own URL shortening service since there's no real profits to be made through this, but if Bit.ly can create a working business model then that’s a whole different game. Why would Twitter give away the link data and profits generated on its platform to a 3rd party company like Bit.ly?
2009 was a good year for Bit.ly, but 2010 will be a rough year for the service. If Goo.gl is opened to the public or partners with Twitter we'll see Bit.ly squeezed out of the market. If Bit.ly figures out how to monetize its service then Twitter will bring this service in-house and leave Bit.ly out in the cold. Either way, it seems like a ‘lose-lose’ situation for Bit.ly.
Or who knows, maybe I'll go ahead and launch Shr.ty and take the URL shortening world by storm!
iPhone, Google Phone, Zune Phone?
.jpg)
With the upcoming release of Google’s Nexus One we’re seeing a big shift in the smartphone industry. The new direction in mobile is in integrating the hardware and software behind the device and delivering a ‘complete’ and ‘pure’ experience to consumers. Apple obviously started this out with the wildly successful iPhone and now Google is following suit with the Nexus One. Let’s not forget about Nokia’s Maemo platform and Samsung’s upcoming Bada operating system. But what about Microsoft? Where do Microsoft and its Windows Mobile platform fit in this increasingly competitive arena?Microsoft has certainly fallen behind the curve in the mobile world. There’s no buzz around its mobile platform right now and sales of Windows Mobile devices have been relatively low compared to its competitors. Some analysts are calling for Microsoft to get out of the phone business entirely. It seems unlikely that Microsoft will exit this area given the importance of mobile computing, but it definitely needs to shift its strategy if it hopes to compete for market share. I think that if Microsoft hopes to remain a player in the mobile world it will need to cross the threshold into smartphone hardware and release its own fully branded Windows phone.
Microsoft is no stranger to stepping into the hardware game. Microsoft successfully entered the video game market in 2001 with the introduction of the Xbox console, challenging Sony and Nintendo for superiority in the home gaming market. Microsoft also entered the portable media player market in 2006 with the Zune player to challenge Apple’s line of iPods. The Zune player itself is a sleek device that rivals the iPod in functionality and ease of use, but it never really caught on with consumers. Although it has not sold well in the market, analysts predict that Microsoft may enhance the Zune device with phone capabilities and enter the smartphone space with it.
Over the past year, there have been murmurs on the internet about the ‘Zune Phone’, but so far nothing concrete has materialized and Microsoft has not confirmed any of these rumors. The release of the Nexus One will certainly increase this chatter. It’s also going to inadvertently shine a bright light on Microsoft and call into question its current mobile strategy. Right now it appears that Microsoft is focusing much of its attention on the next version of its mobile operating system, Windows Mobile 7, scheduled for a 2010 launch. But will this be enough for Microsoft to regain its lost market share? Probably not.
If Microsoft hopes to once again become a leader in mobile computing it will need to follow the lead of its rivals. Windows Mobile 7 will not be enough. Microsoft needs to move beyond software and integrate into hardware for smartphones. I think we will see a Zune Phone released by the end of 2010. If Microsoft waits much longer than that it could find itself completely out of the mobile revolution.
How much will the Google Phone cost?
The Google Phone, aka Nexus One, has only been out (unofficially) for one day and already it's causing a frenzy on the internet. Over on Mashable Jennifer Van Grove has already listed out a comparative analysis between the Nexus One and the iPhone, based on the limited information that's been released to the public.
One of the big unknowns right now revolves around the price of the Nexus One. Google is selling the phone online and unlocked. This means that the Nexus One can be used on any GSM carrier. This also means that there won't be any carrier directly subsidizing the device, which could make the Nexus One prohibitively expensive. The iPhone retails for $199-$299, but this price is heavily subsidized by AT&T, which then makes up the cost over the lifetime of the service contract. The question on a lot of people's minds right now is whether or not Google can subsidize the Nexus One down to this level.
I expect to see the Nexus One retail for $199-$299, comparable to the iPhone. Google will use the same approach it’s taking with Android and the Chrome OS; subsidize the ancillary product heavily with the end goal of generating more revenue through Google's core product: AdSense.
This all goes back to Google's Revenue Equation. Google's main strategy is to get consumers on the web and to increasingly keep our lives wired. As long as we're using the web, Google is making money, thanks to its omnipresent AdSense program.
The Nexus One is the latest product of this basic strategy, and it stands to reason that Google will subsidize the device enough to make it comparable in price to the iPhone. If the Nexus One is released unlocked and at a low enough price then there won't be any reason for anyone NOT to have a smartphone device and be connected to the web at all times.
The Google Phone is coming
Big Google news this weekend: the Google Phone is coming! This highly anticipated move takes Google's Android mobile phone platform to the next level and could be a big game changer in the mobile landscape.
Last month I talked about Google's current problems with Android; brand appeal, simplicity and applications. All of these issues stemmed from Google's decentralized approach to the mobile market. Google gave away the Android OS to any manufacturer who wanted to use it and as a result the market was flooded with many different Android devices that each worked a bit differently than the rest. The fragmentation of the Android market was causing headaches for both consumers and app developers alike.
The solution itself seemed simple enough, although it would be hard to implement. Google would have to regain control of its mobile platform and standardize the consumer experience on Android. Google would have to somehow rein in all of the Android devices running in the wild and establish a unified platform for consumers.
The Google Phone looks like it will do all that. By rolling out its own phone, Google will be able to control every aspect of the device, from hardware to software, and deliver a complete 'Google' experience. The issue of brand appeal and simplicity go away. If a consumer wants an Android phone, the choice is clear; get the latest Google Phone. The issue of application compatibility goes away too. Google will control the OS on its phone and can push out updates and patches as it deems fit.
But what about Droid and the other Android devices out in the wild? Will Google continue to support these devices? They'll probably still be supported but we're likely to see the number of non-Google Android devices go down. The Google Phone may not be immediately available on all carriers, so there may still be a couple new Android devices released on different networks. Expect to see Google exert a tighter control on these devices as it looks to enforce the Android standard.
Now that Google is moving away from a 'Windows Mobile' strategy and moving closer towards an 'iPhone' strategy, how will Microsoft and Apple react?
Will Microsoft enter the phone manufacturer market? There have been murmurs of a Zune Phone but nothing concrete yet. Windows Mobile is falling further and further behind the curve; what can Microsoft do at this point to regain market share?
What will be the impact next year when the AT&T and iPhone exclusivity deal ends? Verizon is rumored to be the next major American carrier to roll out the iPhone. Can T-Mobile be too far behind? You can already unlock an iPhone and run it on T-Mobile's GSM network. Can Apple nip the Google Phone in the bud by making the iPhone more widely available to consumers?
Finally, don't forget about the impact of apps. As of November, the App Store has 100,000 apps available to the Android Market's 15,000. The Windows Marketplace has 376. Unless the Google Phone completely blows away the iPhone in terms of hardware superiority, the battle will still come down to apps. Google has a long way to go before it can match Apple for app numbers. The Google Phone will cause a spike in the number of apps on the Android Market, but will it be enough to pass up the App Store?
Last month I talked about Google's current problems with Android; brand appeal, simplicity and applications. All of these issues stemmed from Google's decentralized approach to the mobile market. Google gave away the Android OS to any manufacturer who wanted to use it and as a result the market was flooded with many different Android devices that each worked a bit differently than the rest. The fragmentation of the Android market was causing headaches for both consumers and app developers alike.
The solution itself seemed simple enough, although it would be hard to implement. Google would have to regain control of its mobile platform and standardize the consumer experience on Android. Google would have to somehow rein in all of the Android devices running in the wild and establish a unified platform for consumers.
The Google Phone looks like it will do all that. By rolling out its own phone, Google will be able to control every aspect of the device, from hardware to software, and deliver a complete 'Google' experience. The issue of brand appeal and simplicity go away. If a consumer wants an Android phone, the choice is clear; get the latest Google Phone. The issue of application compatibility goes away too. Google will control the OS on its phone and can push out updates and patches as it deems fit.
But what about Droid and the other Android devices out in the wild? Will Google continue to support these devices? They'll probably still be supported but we're likely to see the number of non-Google Android devices go down. The Google Phone may not be immediately available on all carriers, so there may still be a couple new Android devices released on different networks. Expect to see Google exert a tighter control on these devices as it looks to enforce the Android standard.
Now that Google is moving away from a 'Windows Mobile' strategy and moving closer towards an 'iPhone' strategy, how will Microsoft and Apple react?
Will Microsoft enter the phone manufacturer market? There have been murmurs of a Zune Phone but nothing concrete yet. Windows Mobile is falling further and further behind the curve; what can Microsoft do at this point to regain market share?
What will be the impact next year when the AT&T and iPhone exclusivity deal ends? Verizon is rumored to be the next major American carrier to roll out the iPhone. Can T-Mobile be too far behind? You can already unlock an iPhone and run it on T-Mobile's GSM network. Can Apple nip the Google Phone in the bud by making the iPhone more widely available to consumers?
Finally, don't forget about the impact of apps. As of November, the App Store has 100,000 apps available to the Android Market's 15,000. The Windows Marketplace has 376. Unless the Google Phone completely blows away the iPhone in terms of hardware superiority, the battle will still come down to apps. Google has a long way to go before it can match Apple for app numbers. The Google Phone will cause a spike in the number of apps on the Android Market, but will it be enough to pass up the App Store?
Rupert Murdoch's Plan
Rupert Murdoch, founder and CEO of News Corp., has a big problem on his hands. His media company has reported massive losses in the past year as both its print ad revenue and online ad revenue have dropped hard in the current recession. The rise of new media has changed the landscape of business today, and old media companies with old media business models, such as News Corp., have struggled to generate revenue in the world of free flowing information. Rupert Murdoch isn't going out without a fight though, and over the past couple of months we've seen him slowly roll out his plan for turning around News Corp.'s fortunes.
First, News Corp. started out by announcing that Hulu (a joint venture between ABC, NBC and Fox) would soon start operating with a subscription model. Then News Corp. announced that MySpace Music would also begin charging for access to its content. And now the next big shake-up comes from News Corp.'s Wall Street Journal, which has announced intentions to remove its content from Google's search engine and forge an exclusive deal with Microsoft's Bing search engine.
Rupert Murdoch is essentially calling for an end to the internet free-for-all. He wants consumers to start paying for access to his online content. Murdoch's plan is to place his major online properties behind a paywall and restrict free access to premium content. If successful, he expects other major content providers will follow suit. It's a bold plan to say the least, but it does make you wonder about the risks News Corp. faces in implementing such a plan. Can Murdoch reverse the tide of free flowing information and create a successful revenue stream from his online content?
It can be done, but not with Murdoch's current approach. It's understood that News Corp. needs to change its business model in order to generate revenue in the online world, but Murdoch's current plan of attack is flawed and short-sighted. Aside from Hulu, which has a valid shot with a freemium business model, Murdoch's other web properties won't fare so well if he decides to put them up behind a paywall. MySpace Music isn't as hot as it used to be and has been leapfrogged by other music sites. The Wall Street Journal may be a prestigious news source, but there are many other reliable news sources on the web that would be more than willing to step up and fill the void. Murdoch will lose major online traffic volume and could see his precious web properties relegated to the archives of internet history. The news will continue to flow freely on the internet even without the presence of the Wall Street Journal.
My suggestion to Rupert Murdoch: instead of trying to remove value from the system, why not add more value into the system? I like the idea of working on an exclusive deal with Microsoft; why not try to work on an exclusive integration of WSJ material (and other News Corp. content) into Bing? Other search engines can still access the basic content, but only your exclusive partners would have access to your enhanced coverage. Use innovation and creativity to devise new ways to deliver material and enrich your reader's experience.
Information is meant to be free, and will remain so on the internet. How you package and deliver that information is where you'll find opportunities to capture market share and create profit for your business.
First, News Corp. started out by announcing that Hulu (a joint venture between ABC, NBC and Fox) would soon start operating with a subscription model. Then News Corp. announced that MySpace Music would also begin charging for access to its content. And now the next big shake-up comes from News Corp.'s Wall Street Journal, which has announced intentions to remove its content from Google's search engine and forge an exclusive deal with Microsoft's Bing search engine.
Rupert Murdoch is essentially calling for an end to the internet free-for-all. He wants consumers to start paying for access to his online content. Murdoch's plan is to place his major online properties behind a paywall and restrict free access to premium content. If successful, he expects other major content providers will follow suit. It's a bold plan to say the least, but it does make you wonder about the risks News Corp. faces in implementing such a plan. Can Murdoch reverse the tide of free flowing information and create a successful revenue stream from his online content?
It can be done, but not with Murdoch's current approach. It's understood that News Corp. needs to change its business model in order to generate revenue in the online world, but Murdoch's current plan of attack is flawed and short-sighted. Aside from Hulu, which has a valid shot with a freemium business model, Murdoch's other web properties won't fare so well if he decides to put them up behind a paywall. MySpace Music isn't as hot as it used to be and has been leapfrogged by other music sites. The Wall Street Journal may be a prestigious news source, but there are many other reliable news sources on the web that would be more than willing to step up and fill the void. Murdoch will lose major online traffic volume and could see his precious web properties relegated to the archives of internet history. The news will continue to flow freely on the internet even without the presence of the Wall Street Journal.
My suggestion to Rupert Murdoch: instead of trying to remove value from the system, why not add more value into the system? I like the idea of working on an exclusive deal with Microsoft; why not try to work on an exclusive integration of WSJ material (and other News Corp. content) into Bing? Other search engines can still access the basic content, but only your exclusive partners would have access to your enhanced coverage. Use innovation and creativity to devise new ways to deliver material and enrich your reader's experience.
Information is meant to be free, and will remain so on the internet. How you package and deliver that information is where you'll find opportunities to capture market share and create profit for your business.
Google's Revenue Equation
I've been talking a lot about Google products lately, including Android, Gmail, YouTube and Google GPS. There are other Google products I haven't touched on yet, like Google Wave, Google Chrome browser, Google Chrome OS, GTalk, Blogger, Google Friend Connect, Orkut.
With Android and Google GPS, I've talked about Google's strategy of giving away its products for free in order to acquire mobile search market share. It's worth taking a look at this tactic from a higher perspective and analyzing Google's larger strategy. What is Google's core product? Search, of course. Search drives ad revenue through the AdSense program, and a quick look at Google's income statement from last year shows a $21 billion in advertising revenue. So, Google's main strategy appears to be: Drive people to search, which in turn leads to higher ad revenue.
Ben Parr argues that Google's strategy is actually much simpler than that. Google's strategy isn't to gain market share with its products, it's simply to get you to use the web more often and for longer amounts of time. AdSense is the core of Google's revenue engine, but you have to think about AdSense outside of Google's products. Google's places ads all over the internet, not just in its own products. Go to any website, big and small, and you're likely to see Google ads. From YouTube, MySpace, New York Times and blogs worldwide, you're going to see Google ads delivered to you. The entire web is a platform for Google's AdSense product. So, Google's main strategy now appears to be: Drive people to use the web, which in turn leads to higher ad revenue. Parr has a nice little equation to sum this all up.
Android fits this equation, as does YouTube, Gmail and Google GPS. In fact, if you take a look at most of Google's products you'll see they're all designed to get you on the web. This is why Google chooses to give away some of its more innovative products for free, like Chrome or Android. They're designed to make it easier for us to connect online and to increasingly keep our lives wired. As long as you're on the web, Google is happy.
With Android and Google GPS, I've talked about Google's strategy of giving away its products for free in order to acquire mobile search market share. It's worth taking a look at this tactic from a higher perspective and analyzing Google's larger strategy. What is Google's core product? Search, of course. Search drives ad revenue through the AdSense program, and a quick look at Google's income statement from last year shows a $21 billion in advertising revenue. So, Google's main strategy appears to be: Drive people to search, which in turn leads to higher ad revenue.
Ben Parr argues that Google's strategy is actually much simpler than that. Google's strategy isn't to gain market share with its products, it's simply to get you to use the web more often and for longer amounts of time. AdSense is the core of Google's revenue engine, but you have to think about AdSense outside of Google's products. Google's places ads all over the internet, not just in its own products. Go to any website, big and small, and you're likely to see Google ads. From YouTube, MySpace, New York Times and blogs worldwide, you're going to see Google ads delivered to you. The entire web is a platform for Google's AdSense product. So, Google's main strategy now appears to be: Drive people to use the web, which in turn leads to higher ad revenue. Parr has a nice little equation to sum this all up.
Google's Revenue Equation: Revenue = Amount of Time on the Web
Android fits this equation, as does YouTube, Gmail and Google GPS. In fact, if you take a look at most of Google's products you'll see they're all designed to get you on the web. This is why Google chooses to give away some of its more innovative products for free, like Chrome or Android. They're designed to make it easier for us to connect online and to increasingly keep our lives wired. As long as you're on the web, Google is happy.
Android's Problems: Brand appeal, simplicity and applications
There's a lot of anti-Android chatter right now all over the web, stemming from the Android fragmentation problem I've mentioned a couple of times. Mike Elgan, from Datamation, is the latest analyst to call for Android's failure. Elgan writes "In today's [smartphone] market ... only three things count: brand appeal, simplicity and applications." In all three of these the iPhone leads the market. It has the "top brand, easiest-to-use phone and the most and best applications" available. It's not hard to see why the iPhone is dominating the smartphone industry. Any real challenger would have to tackle the iPhone on all three fronts:
If we take a look at the barriers that Google faces on all three fronts, they each boil down to one thing: Google's decentralized strategy with the Android platform.
Google has a Brand problem because it allows for any phone manufacturer to rebrand the Android platform. You have the Motorola Droid, the HTC Magic and the Samsung Galaxy, to name a few. By next year there will be many more phone with many different names all using Android in different ways.
Google's Simplicity problem stems from the same source as its Brand problem. Google provides the Android platform for any phone manufacturer to use. Again, you have the Motorola Droid, the HTC Magic and the Samsung Galaxy, to name a few. If you walk into a store you may get overwhelmed with all of the different options and complex features available. Apple doesn't have this problem. Apple has the iPhone. You walk into a store, you see the latest iPhone, and you get it. Quick and simple.
Finally, Google's App problem is one I've talked about in my "Fragmentation of the Android market" posts. With all of the different versions of Android platforms out there, applications built for the Android may not be guaranteed to work across all Android phones. This is problematic for both consumers and developers.
Overall it sounds like the tech market is bearish on Android right now, which is too bad because it's a solid open platform that could bring real innovation to the smartphone market and provide an alternative to Apple's iPhone. Google's current Android strategy is working well in gaining market share right now, but at some point it will need to evolve if it hopes to be sustainable in the industry. I'll repost my recommendation from my 11/17 post: My recommendation: standardize the Android platform and enforce that standard. Once Google has gained a large enough foothold in the mobile market, it can command better control over the usage of Android with phone manufacturers. It can limit the number of OS versions, force software upgrades, set hardware standards, and standardize the user interface. All this will help to enhance the app experience for both users and developers on the Android platform.
This is the problem competitors face with creating the elusive "iPhone killer." In order to beat the iPhone, a cell phone would have to at minimum equal the iPhone in two of these measures, and surpass it in the third. In other words, an iPhone Killer would have to, say, be associated with as good a brand as the Apple and iPhone brands, be every bit as simple to use as the iPhone, and have more applications.
If we take a look at the barriers that Google faces on all three fronts, they each boil down to one thing: Google's decentralized strategy with the Android platform.
Google has a Brand problem because it allows for any phone manufacturer to rebrand the Android platform. You have the Motorola Droid, the HTC Magic and the Samsung Galaxy, to name a few. By next year there will be many more phone with many different names all using Android in different ways.
Google's Simplicity problem stems from the same source as its Brand problem. Google provides the Android platform for any phone manufacturer to use. Again, you have the Motorola Droid, the HTC Magic and the Samsung Galaxy, to name a few. If you walk into a store you may get overwhelmed with all of the different options and complex features available. Apple doesn't have this problem. Apple has the iPhone. You walk into a store, you see the latest iPhone, and you get it. Quick and simple.
Finally, Google's App problem is one I've talked about in my "Fragmentation of the Android market" posts. With all of the different versions of Android platforms out there, applications built for the Android may not be guaranteed to work across all Android phones. This is problematic for both consumers and developers.
It's already difficult, expensive and time consuming to develop on the Android platform. As a result, we can expect three bad outcomes: First, consumers will face uncertainty and confusion about which apps can successfully run on what devices. Second, the complexity, time and hassle of coping with multiple OS versions and many hardware variations provide a disincentive for many would-be developers to stick with it. And finally, providing real compatibility requires extra code, which could affect app performance.
Overall it sounds like the tech market is bearish on Android right now, which is too bad because it's a solid open platform that could bring real innovation to the smartphone market and provide an alternative to Apple's iPhone. Google's current Android strategy is working well in gaining market share right now, but at some point it will need to evolve if it hopes to be sustainable in the industry. I'll repost my recommendation from my 11/17 post: My recommendation: standardize the Android platform and enforce that standard. Once Google has gained a large enough foothold in the mobile market, it can command better control over the usage of Android with phone manufacturers. It can limit the number of OS versions, force software upgrades, set hardware standards, and standardize the user interface. All this will help to enhance the app experience for both users and developers on the Android platform.
Fragmentation of the Android market: Part 2
Yesterday I talked about the fragmentation of the Android market from a consumer's perspective. All the different Android versions on the market could potentially confuse consumers and stop them from making an Android phone purchase. Today I wanted to take a look at the fragmentation issue from an app developer's perspective.
Wired magazine has an article this week about Android's rapid growth and rising developer concerns. Android is now available on at least 12 phones and is scheduled to be released on many more over the next year. But this isn't necessarily good news for Android developers.
It looks like the flexibility that Google has given to phone manufacturers with Android has created many different variations of its mobile platform. These variations may be small enough to go unnoticed by an average consumer, but they're large enough that they can cause a developer major headaches. Instead of working on new features and apps, developers find themselves busy debugging their existing apps across different Android phones.
This problem will only get worse as more and more different Android phones are released into the marketplace. iPhone developers don't have this problem since Apple tightly controls the iPhone platform and the operating system version. “Apple maintains an iron grip on what they do and there’s an advantage to that,” says Kelly Schrock, app developer. “IPhone developers don’t have to worry about fragmentation and creating apps for the iPhone is much easier.”
App developers are critical to the complementary network around a mobile platform. Where would the iPhone be without the developers that created the 100,000+ apps in the App Store? No matter how small or trivial, apps play a major role in the mobile world. If a slowdown in developer productivity leads to less new app releases on the Android platform, Google could very well see user share slip away as consumers switch to a platform with a better 'eco-system'.
At some point in the near term future, Google must address this problem. My recommendation: standardize the Android platform and enforce that standard. Once Google has gained a large enough foothold in the mobile market, it can command better control over the usage of Android with phone manufacturers. It can limit the number of OS versions, force software upgrades, set hardware standards, and standardize the user interface. All this will help to enhance the app experience for both users and developers on the Android platform.
Wired magazine has an article this week about Android's rapid growth and rising developer concerns. Android is now available on at least 12 phones and is scheduled to be released on many more over the next year. But this isn't necessarily good news for Android developers.
A slew of problems have made managing Android apps a “nightmare,” [developers] say, including three versions of the OS (Android 1.5, 1.6 and 2.0), custom firmware on many phones, and hardware differences between different models.
For users, it means apps in the store could be buggy, might not work well depending on their handsets, and could deliver a frustrating experience. Unaware of the increasing back-end complexity, they would then be more likely to leave bad reviews for those apps — a potentially lethal blow for small businesses, say developers.
It looks like the flexibility that Google has given to phone manufacturers with Android has created many different variations of its mobile platform. These variations may be small enough to go unnoticed by an average consumer, but they're large enough that they can cause a developer major headaches. Instead of working on new features and apps, developers find themselves busy debugging their existing apps across different Android phones.
This problem will only get worse as more and more different Android phones are released into the marketplace. iPhone developers don't have this problem since Apple tightly controls the iPhone platform and the operating system version. “Apple maintains an iron grip on what they do and there’s an advantage to that,” says Kelly Schrock, app developer. “IPhone developers don’t have to worry about fragmentation and creating apps for the iPhone is much easier.”
App developers are critical to the complementary network around a mobile platform. Where would the iPhone be without the developers that created the 100,000+ apps in the App Store? No matter how small or trivial, apps play a major role in the mobile world. If a slowdown in developer productivity leads to less new app releases on the Android platform, Google could very well see user share slip away as consumers switch to a platform with a better 'eco-system'.
At some point in the near term future, Google must address this problem. My recommendation: standardize the Android platform and enforce that standard. Once Google has gained a large enough foothold in the mobile market, it can command better control over the usage of Android with phone manufacturers. It can limit the number of OS versions, force software upgrades, set hardware standards, and standardize the user interface. All this will help to enhance the app experience for both users and developers on the Android platform.
Fragmentation of the Android market
Great article from Peter Burrows about the real hurdle Motorola's Droid faces: fragmentation of the Android market. Peter writes:
Ed Zander, former CEO of Motorola, raises another good point. Zander "wonders if consumers will be put off by the complexity of the Android model. It’s bad enough with the iPhone, where Apple is responsible for the device and AT&T for the network. With Android, 'are you buying from Verizon, or Google or Motorola?'"
Google's distributed approach in the mobile market is giving it an early jump in market share, but it will have to be careful to keep a cohesive and unified "platform" as the different number of Android versions in the marketplace multiply.
If I have a Motorola Droid, my friend has an HTC myTouch (Magic), and our mutual friend has a Samsung Galaxy, our phones should all be able to talk to each other. And if not, who should we turn to for support?
But Droid’s main competition isn’t really the iPhone: it’s fragmentation of the Android market. Clearly, Apple will have no problem keeping consumers focused on its device. The iPhone is the only smart phone Apple sells ... now consider Motorola’s challenge. Within weeks, consumers who go into a Verizon store will have many of different phones to choose from ... all these different interfaces is bound to confuse consumers.
Ed Zander, former CEO of Motorola, raises another good point. Zander "wonders if consumers will be put off by the complexity of the Android model. It’s bad enough with the iPhone, where Apple is responsible for the device and AT&T for the network. With Android, 'are you buying from Verizon, or Google or Motorola?'"
Google's distributed approach in the mobile market is giving it an early jump in market share, but it will have to be careful to keep a cohesive and unified "platform" as the different number of Android versions in the marketplace multiply.
If I have a Motorola Droid, my friend has an HTC myTouch (Magic), and our mutual friend has a Samsung Galaxy, our phones should all be able to talk to each other. And if not, who should we turn to for support?
Buzz Killer?
Hmmm, haven't heard too much about the Droid today. The "killer" phone was launched last Friday and was supposed to really shake up the mobile phone industry, but so far not too much noise being generated on the internet about it. Maybe it's being overshadowed by bigger news... such as the rumored Verizon-iPhone deal for 2010...
The Droid has arrived
Verizon's Droid is released to the public today! We haven't seen this much hype and buzz around a phone since the Palm Pre or the Blackberry Storm, and we all know how those worked out. Many have hailed the Droid as the next iPhone killer, but I prefer the term Windows Mobile killer. We'll see how much of the hype actually lives up to the real thing this week.
Gizmodo sums it up quite nicely:
Gizmodo sums it up quite nicely:
It's this simple: If you don't buy an iPhone, buy a Droid.
It's the best phone on Verizon, and with Android 2.0, the second best smartphone you can buy, period. It's flawed, deeply in some ways. But it's the second best phone around, on the best network around.
Google GPS
Google just keeps dropping bombs all over the web, and its latest product offering is already making huge waves. Last week, Google announced that it would provide free turn-by-turn GPS maps to mobile devices. Reaction was sharp and immediate: GPS-makers saw their share prices plummet.
It's hard to compete against a giant like Google when it gives away its products for free. Just like with the Android mobile platform, Google is giving away its GPS maps product for free in order to build up its mobile search market. So it's hard for the other mapmakers to compete against Google when all of their profits come directly from the map technology and Google's profit comes from the search revenue delivered indirectly by the map technology. Google's complementary search product is so strong that it has a huge competitive advantage in almost any field X it enters since it can afford to off-set any direct losses on product X with indirect search revenue, so long as that product can add to Google's search market share.
What's even more interesting is that sometimes Google even pays for others to use its product. For example, with the Android platform, Google will actually pay you ad splits to use certain licensed versions of its software. This "less than free" model is even more bad news for anyone competing against the search giant.
Who will be next to fall under the mighty axe of Google?
It's hard to compete against a giant like Google when it gives away its products for free. Just like with the Android mobile platform, Google is giving away its GPS maps product for free in order to build up its mobile search market. So it's hard for the other mapmakers to compete against Google when all of their profits come directly from the map technology and Google's profit comes from the search revenue delivered indirectly by the map technology. Google's complementary search product is so strong that it has a huge competitive advantage in almost any field X it enters since it can afford to off-set any direct losses on product X with indirect search revenue, so long as that product can add to Google's search market share.
What's even more interesting is that sometimes Google even pays for others to use its product. For example, with the Android platform, Google will actually pay you ad splits to use certain licensed versions of its software. This "less than free" model is even more bad news for anyone competing against the search giant.
Who will be next to fall under the mighty axe of Google?
Windows Mobile Killer
The Droid chatter continues on the web, and Verizon has announced that it's releasing it next week on November 6th. It will be interesting to see how the Droid actually performs in the market and how much user share it can steal away from the other mobile platforms.
Of course the Droid has been called the "iPhone Killer", but then again so has every other new phone that has come out recently. One thing I mentioned in an earlier post is how much different Google's strategy is to Apple's when it comes to their mobile platforms. While Apple has only released the iPhone on its handsets and on the AT&T network, Google has gone with a wider spread approach and essentially released Android into the wild. So maybe it's incorrect to compare the Android (Droid) to the iPhone, when we really should be comparing it to something else.
This Tech Crunch article ("The problem with iPhone Killers") does a great job of highlighting this point. The Droid isn't actually an iPhone Killer because first and foremost... it's not trying to be an iPhone Killer! Although it's competing in the same marketplace with the iPhone, in actuality Google's strategy and approach seems to be more targeted at being a "Windows Mobile Killer". Google is following the same mobile operation model as Microsoft; releasing its mobile operating system to the device makers and letting them control the physical hardware and distribution process. But the big difference for Google is that its OS is open source and free, while Microsoft charges licensing fees upwards of $25 per phone. The problem for Microsoft right now is that the Android platform is starting to gain real traction with the public and with the device makers. We're seeing more and more phones released with the Android platform, stealing away market share from Windows Mobile. Microsoft is responding with its upcoming Windows Mobile 7 platform, but for now it looks like it could be facing a lengthy uphill battle against Google.
So while most people will be eagerly anticipating the release of the latest iPhone Killer next week, I think I'll be keeping a closer eye on the real battle going on in the mobile world. At some future point, Android might be a true iPhone killer, but for now Google appears to be focusing on building up its mobile base by going after much weaker prey: Microsoft.
Of course the Droid has been called the "iPhone Killer", but then again so has every other new phone that has come out recently. One thing I mentioned in an earlier post is how much different Google's strategy is to Apple's when it comes to their mobile platforms. While Apple has only released the iPhone on its handsets and on the AT&T network, Google has gone with a wider spread approach and essentially released Android into the wild. So maybe it's incorrect to compare the Android (Droid) to the iPhone, when we really should be comparing it to something else.
This Tech Crunch article ("The problem with iPhone Killers") does a great job of highlighting this point. The Droid isn't actually an iPhone Killer because first and foremost... it's not trying to be an iPhone Killer! Although it's competing in the same marketplace with the iPhone, in actuality Google's strategy and approach seems to be more targeted at being a "Windows Mobile Killer". Google is following the same mobile operation model as Microsoft; releasing its mobile operating system to the device makers and letting them control the physical hardware and distribution process. But the big difference for Google is that its OS is open source and free, while Microsoft charges licensing fees upwards of $25 per phone. The problem for Microsoft right now is that the Android platform is starting to gain real traction with the public and with the device makers. We're seeing more and more phones released with the Android platform, stealing away market share from Windows Mobile. Microsoft is responding with its upcoming Windows Mobile 7 platform, but for now it looks like it could be facing a lengthy uphill battle against Google.
So while most people will be eagerly anticipating the release of the latest iPhone Killer next week, I think I'll be keeping a closer eye on the real battle going on in the mobile world. At some future point, Android might be a true iPhone killer, but for now Google appears to be focusing on building up its mobile base by going after much weaker prey: Microsoft.
The Droid is coming
There's a lot of buzz going around right now about the new Droid phone. It's a Motorola smartphone running the Google Android platform on Verizon's network. The technical specs on the phone sound impressive, and the marketing campaign launching right now is positioning it as the iPhone killer everyone has been waiting for.
A couple posts ago I talked about Windows Mobile phones vs. the iPhone. I mentioned that even though the Windows HTC phone I was looking at might have better technical specs, it didn't have the same complementary 'network' (Apps Store, user base) that the iPhone has and as such was at a disadvantage. I didn't mention the Google Android platform at the time, but it is certainly emerging as a contender in the mobile operating system market.
The App Store has 85,000 applications available, and coming in (a somewhat distant) distant second is the Android Market at 10,200. These numbers are based on statistics pulled on Sept. 9th, 2009.
So how did Google get the Android platform to a place where it's ready to take on the current reigning champion? This CNET article ("Google Andoid: More than just a cheap date") seems to attribute most of Android's success to its open source nature. Google pretty much gives away the Android platform to any device manufacturer that might be interested in using it. This allows for anyone to experiment with the platform on their upcoming phones and helps lower the overall cost of manufacturing and licensing. The platform also draws in a heavy crowd of application developers looking for the flexibility of open source. Seems like a win-win in terms of adoption for Google. For now the focus appears to be on gaining widespread adoption and usage, and using that as a channel to deliver search and advertising services. Classic Google.
The new Droid phone appears to have the two key features needed to take on the iPhone. It has equal (if not better) technical specs. More importantly, it has a complementary network that is growing and will soon challenge the App Store in offerings. As the Android platform is released on more and more new phones we should see the Android user base steadily grow. We'll see if this is enough to take on the incumbent Apple.
A couple posts ago I talked about Windows Mobile phones vs. the iPhone. I mentioned that even though the Windows HTC phone I was looking at might have better technical specs, it didn't have the same complementary 'network' (Apps Store, user base) that the iPhone has and as such was at a disadvantage. I didn't mention the Google Android platform at the time, but it is certainly emerging as a contender in the mobile operating system market.
The App Store has 85,000 applications available, and coming in (a somewhat distant) distant second is the Android Market at 10,200. These numbers are based on statistics pulled on Sept. 9th, 2009.
So how did Google get the Android platform to a place where it's ready to take on the current reigning champion? This CNET article ("Google Andoid: More than just a cheap date") seems to attribute most of Android's success to its open source nature. Google pretty much gives away the Android platform to any device manufacturer that might be interested in using it. This allows for anyone to experiment with the platform on their upcoming phones and helps lower the overall cost of manufacturing and licensing. The platform also draws in a heavy crowd of application developers looking for the flexibility of open source. Seems like a win-win in terms of adoption for Google. For now the focus appears to be on gaining widespread adoption and usage, and using that as a channel to deliver search and advertising services. Classic Google.
The new Droid phone appears to have the two key features needed to take on the iPhone. It has equal (if not better) technical specs. More importantly, it has a complementary network that is growing and will soon challenge the App Store in offerings. As the Android platform is released on more and more new phones we should see the Android user base steadily grow. We'll see if this is enough to take on the incumbent Apple.
