Getting Over The Initial Developer Resistance To Android
The whole point of Google’s Android platform is that it’s open, and any company can develop any application for it… so what if they don’t want to? The Seattle Times spoke to some mobile developers (all in Seattle) to find out whether they had plans to develop for Android, and “the consensus of a dozen or so Seattle-area startups, well-established companies and individual developers is that, while many checked out the code disclosed last week, they didn’t have immediate plans to do anything”. The companies still have a lot of questions regarding the platform, and think it’s too early to take time and resources away from projects that are expected to make money…not even the $10 million in prize money Google (NSDQ: GOOG) is offering is enough of a draw.
Reading through all the quotes, it seems the developers are excited but the business people less so. Chris Lihosit, a senior creative technical architect at Action Engine, said the features of Android look great but Action Engine is not interested: “To be clear, I’m excited about firing it up and banging away to my heart’s content whenever I have a weekend to burn,” Lihosit said, “but I don’t know if it will be part of my job description.” Jeff Holden, co-founder and chief executive of Pelago, said that “today there is zero value to rushing into porting for it”. Which is true, and which I think is the main point — although there are plans for Android-based phones next year, the platform is new and there’s a real danger the first handsets won’t hit the consumers’ hand until 2009, so it’s not strange for mobile companies to wait a bit before putting resources into the platform.
The Seattle Times makes it sound like a chicken-and-egg situation, where developers won’t be interested in the Android platform until it’s being used by million of people, and people won’t be interested in the handsets until developers create a lot of cool stuff for it. True enough, but even without the partners in the alliance Google has enough development power, mobile and web services and — most importantly — enough brand power to be able to sell a significant number of phones off it’s own power. Not enough to challenge Symbian or Windows Mobile, but enough to attract the attention of 3rd party developers, and that will drive more people to use the handsets.
This is what I think we need to truly make Android an open platform:
http://kashi.webhop.net/blog/Technology/index.php/archives/25
I thought the Seattle Times article was well written and very balanced.
I applaud any company that seeks to create a more level playing field for the consumer. However, there are literally dozens of mobile OS's on the market, all with various levels of claimed "openness". While the Android OS is interesting, it will take quite a bit of effort on Google's part for it to reach critical mass. People don't buy phones for the OS, they buy them for their sexiness, easy of use, form, and function. That is part of the reason the iPhone has done so well – it is easy to use, well designed, and has a cult following in Apple loyalists.
Microsoft has spent untold millions on Windows Mobile and yet is hoping to ship 20 million units worldwide in 2008; not very many in the overall scheme of things. I wouldn't count Google out of the game by any stretch. But only with time will we know if Android has the legs to become more than just a niche player.