When looking at the future of the mobile market, we can clearly see two big contenders, Apple and Google. While Apple has a definite head start, Google mobile’s strategy and execution has been impressive. In the last couple of years, Google has managed to create an open platform, engage with a wide variety of device manufacturer partners, and promote its own branded device. Although iPhone fans might disagree, it is fair to say that, with the latest Android 2.x generation of devices (i.e., NexusOne), there are fewer and fewer hardware and software differentiators between the two solutions.

The dilemma: iPhone is still the big gorilla

However, despite Google’s successes with Android, iPhone is still the big gorilla, and it is too early to predict whether Android will ever take the lead.

Looking at the three aspects (i.e., product, distribution channel, and ecosystem) of each business, we can easily see that Apple is still the clear leader in the market it created: the application ecosystem. In this category, iPhone beats Androids on all counts (i.e., users, applications, and revenue)

In the real world, this means that if you intend to build a mobile application, you will probably do it first for iPhone and then for Android with the leftover. Ironically, Google is in the same position that Apple is in the PC market vis-a-vis Microsoft.

So the billion dollars (or downloads) question, is how can Google turn the tables?

The solution: Embrace and extend

The short answer is, Google should embrace and extend the iPhone [ecosystem] by creating an Android.iPhone SDK.

Google should enable its Java/Eclipse mobile development environment to support iPhone. This would allow developers to use a single mobile development environment to target different devices. This move would hit Apple at the source of its core differentiator, the developers.

The trick of such execution is to strike the right balance between the write once, run anywhere model and to use the best aspects of each device. In fact, from my experience, the best way to tackle this problem is to offer both models and let developers and time decide which one deserves a greater investment.

For example, Google should offer the following options:

1. A way to “cross-compile” an Android application for the iPhone. This would have the advantage of the write once, run anywhere model, but would inherit its disadvantage as well (i.e., the lowest common denominator).
2. A specific Android.iPhone SDK that would extend the Android SDK where necessary to fully utilize the iPhone specificities.

The good news for Google is that this path, of third-party iPhone development tools, has already been paved by numerous small companies, as well as by Adobe with the upcoming Adobe CS5. Consequently, it will be difficult for Apple to single out Google even if this move could be more disruptive to the iPhone business than Google Voice application (which has been notoriously rejected by Apple for competitiveness reasons).

If Google were to offer this solution, it would have a big impact on how developers approach mobile development. It would eventually position the Android SDK (and Android.iPhone SDK) as the de facto standard environment in which to develop native mobile applications and make Android an easy and cost-effective device to target.

Additionally, this strategy has the unique advantage of bringing Apple into the foreign territory of openness and inclusion. Apple is very comfortable in competing and innovating in closed markets (i.e., music and mobile), but tends to be a little defenseless in open ones.

The catch: Cost

The only catch of this strategy for Google would be the cost. Doing this the cheap way would backfire, and doing it well would not be easy. However, this embrace-and-extend strategy could be the next single most effective step that Google takes in the mobile space.

If you liked this article, retweet, rebuzz, or +1 on HN appreciated

Undeniably, Apple, with the iPhone, has revolutionized the mobile market. Apple did what all mobile device manufacturers and service providers have dreamed of and failed to do for so many years, which was to make the phone an Internet device. A decade from now, nobody will argue that Apple was the company that reinvented what a phone could be.

However, the big question is how long the iPhone will stay the leader of the category it created. Will Apple maintain its market leadership against an ever-growing number of mobile device manufacturers and a variety of well-supported, open, modern mobile platforms (i.e. Android, and maybe Windows Mobile)? Most importantly, will Apple succeed at keeping mobile developers under its control?

Some will argue that Apple has already won, and that as long as Apple continues to innovate, it will keep its leadership for the following reasons:

1) Innovation always wins: iPhone fans would point out that innovation and product quality always wins, and given that Apple is the most innovative company, it can’t lose as long as it continues to innovate at its best.

2) The AppStore is unbeatable: A more mathematical argument would say that the AppStore, with its hundreds of thousands applications and billions of downloads, is the mammoth of the mobile application market and that its momentum cannot be broken. And as Microsoft Windows applications have made Windows stick (even through Vista), iPhone applications define the iPhone so uniquely that even a 2-year-old can tell the difference. 

3) Apple’s marketing is unbeatable: Finally, one could point out that in consumer product marketing, Steve Jobs’ genius combined with the Apple savoir-faire makes Apple an unbeatable marketing powerhouse. In fact, Apple has perfected its marketing machine so well that the industry has even taken Apple’s marketing cues. Every six months or so, the industry goes into a frenzy around an elusive product that Apple might launch in the coming months (or year), and before Apple even drops its first ink on the subject, the tech news is completely consumed by an unidentified new Apple dream product (e.g., Apple’s tablet). I actually believe that Apple pioneered social marketing 20 years ago without telling anybody about it. Apple understood that great marketing is about entertainment (not education) and that entertainment is maximized when it is people-initiated.

Now, the other side of the argument would look at computing history and try to understand why the Apple Mac did not win (even though its single-digit market share has grown slightly the last couple of years). Why is the PC market 90% Windows and 10% Mac, though Mac has always been recognized as a better computing system? In other words, what makes the better product fail to win? Here are some possible explanations:  

1) “It’s the ecosystem, stupid”: Apple’s product strategy is focused mainly on user experience excellence, and to accomplish this goal, Apple does not hesitate to take drastic strategic measures. The safest way to control product quality is to constrain its environment to avoid any possible unknown and unwanted side effect. Apple mastered this art by always keeping all pieces of the system (i.e. hardware and software) under its sole control. In the case of the iPhone, Apple went even further by taking complete control over the application distribution as well, a first in the software industry. While one could argue that these decisions allow Apple to offer products of superior quality, the flip side is that this model limits how far Apple’s product can scale. Product innovation and quality are only two aspects of the user experience, and the ecosystem surrounding a product is also an important characteristic. Microsoft’s strategy of using a more open architecture and business model allowed them to fully utilize the weight of the whole industry to its advantage, which eventually led Microsoft to grow into the monopoly we love to hate today. Apple’s excessive control is good at creating micro-systems and best-in-class product, but Apple won’t be able to maintain its market lead (i.e. the mobile market) by going it alone.

2) Not invented here: Apple is pushing its iPhone application control even further by preventing the distribution of competitive applications. While Apple has been very talented at making their current model very attractive for developers (for the first time, mobile developers can make money developing mobile applications), Apple’s excessive control of application distribution might not scale for long. We are already seeing some high-profile developers leaving the platform and even some great applications, such as Google Voice, being rejected on questionable grounds. Just to be clear, the problem is not that Apple controls what gets into their AppStore but, rather, that the AppStore is the only way to distribute iPhone applications. The biggest issue with Apple’s approach is that it slows down the very thing that Apple wants to accelerate: innovation.

3) The Web will eventually win: Finally, Apple’s complete control over application distribution is diametrically opposed to the Web model. While today, the mobile Internet industry is still in its infancy (i.e. client/server model), the most likely scenario is that the Web will eventually steal the day, and most mobile applications will migrate to the Web as they have for the PC. When (or if) this happens, applications won’t be a key differentiator of any one mobile platform anymore, and therefore, iPhone applications’ head-start won’t be as relevant anymore.

Now, following the second set of arguments, the obvious top contender is Google Android. While Android will not be able to claim to have revolutionized the mobile phone form-factor, it might well be the next Windows of its category, leaving iPhone as the “deluxe” category for item collectors, locked fans, and the nostalgic. Although Google still have some learning to do from Steve Jobs, Google has strategically made the Android platform very open, partner- and developer-friendly, and even managed to show off its own vision of what the hardware should look like (i.e., Nexus-One) while keeping its hardware partners excited and engaged in the platform. In other words, we are witnessing a déjà vu where Apple goes solo while its top contender is building momentum in the industry momentum (see Reuters Google’s Android platform poised to take on iPhone).

Nevertheless, this does not mean that Apple will shrink back to a single-digit market share anytime soon. However, one thing is certain: if you believe in learning from history, the iPhone cannot stay the course if it does not want to get Windows’d by Android.

Related articles:

• 2010-01-15: Reuters, Google’s Android platform poised to take on iPhone
• 2009-11-19: Paul Graham, Apple’s mistake

• 2009-11-11: Insidefacebook.com, Facebook’s Joe Hewitt Quits iPhone App Development Due to Frustration with Apple
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jailbreak_(iPhone_OS)

If you liked this article a +1 on HN or a re-tweet are greatly appreciated.

Apple’s iPhone product and marketplace have been the latest example of Apple’s excessive control. Apple ingeniously controls its iPhone platform at both the production and distribution levels. In practical terms, this means that iPhone developers must have the Apple SDK (which only runs on a Mac computer) to be able to produce an iPhone application (even if developers use other application SDKs, such as PhoneGap). Developers also must get the application approved by Apple in order to distribute it. Microsoft would not have even dared to dream of such a market scheme.

Nevertheless, at its annual event last week, Adobe demonstrated how developers can circumvent iPhone application’s production restrictions by using the upcoming Adobe Flash CS5 to produce native iPhone applications. And while this has little to nothing to do with putting Flash or AIR on the iPhone, it is big news for mobile developers. It will allow any developer on any platform (such as Mac or Windows) to develop iPhone applications.

As of now, Adobe’s solution lacks many of the most interesting iPhone APIs, but it is safe to assume that if Adobe is serious about promoting AS3, its language for native iPhone development, Adobe will provide full iPhone API access in the final release.

Now the big question is, will Apple allow Adobe to fork its iPhone developer community?

It is fair to assume that Adobe did not ask Apple’s permission, and that Apple probably sees this initiative as a competitive threat rather than an opportunity.

Apple cannot afford to ignore Adobe anymore, and must respond to this initiative by carefully weighing the risks of each course of action. Apple has the following three options:

1) Let it go

The first and most unlikely option for Apple will be to let the matter go and allow the Adobe developer community to develop native iPhone applications with Adobe’s technology without needing Apple’s SDK.

By doing so, Apple will definitely change its reputation for maintaining strict control of its technology. However, ignoring this event will set a dangerous precedent that Google may use to enable Android developers to do the same. While Apple might not consider Adobe a direct competitor in the mobile market, Apple definitely does not want to get “Windows’d” by Google.

While this would be the best option for developers, it will be astonishing if Apple goes this route. Apple will probably offer excuses to justify why this option would be a detriment to the iPhone developer and user communities.

2) Block it

The obvious approach for Apple would be to stop Adobe from releasing this product, either by making it technically unreliable, by denying any applications built with it, or by legally harassing Adobe.

The problem with this approach is that it could create a similar insurgence from the developer community as Google Voice did from the user community. This outcome would generate good PR for Adobe and raise awareness among developers about the need for more openness in the iPhone development environment (note how Apple is making anybody look open).

3) Control it

The most likely outcome is that Apple will attempt to control Adobe’s new product by entering into some sort of partnership with Adobe, and, most importantly, keeping Google out of such relationship.

This result could actually benefit Adobe, since Adobe’s true agenda is not to cross compile its Action Script programming language to iPhone byte-code, but rather to distribute its Flash and AIR runtime to the iPhone.

Perhaps Adobe’s Flash CS5 iPhone application support might be part of its master plan to get Apple’s attention in order to bring Flash runtime(s) to the iPhone. If so, this “show, don’t tell” strategy is a smart and modern way to influence bully market players such as Apple.

Anyway, what’s your take, what do you think Apple will do?

If you liked this article a +1 on HN or a re-tweet are greatly appreciated. (see Related Tweets)

Related Article

• 2009-10-15 – InsideRIA – Scott Barnes: Could Adobe potentially harm the iPhone AppStore
• 2010-04-07 – We got our answer, Apple is blocking it: New iPhone Developer Agreement Bans the Use of Adobe’s Flash-to-iPhone Compiler

1) JavaFX is NOT Java.

Obviously, from a marketing standpoint, JavaFX is branded as Java; however, technically JavaFX is a language by itself, which happens to be compiled into Java bytecode and run on a Java VM. JavaFX is similar to Groovy or JRuby, minus the dynamic part (see #2). For example, introspecting a JavaFX object from Java requires some tricks since JavaFX Object/Class definitions do not map directly to those of Java Object/Class. (Note: Sun has been trying to brand JavaFX beyond the JavaFX Language itself, but so far most developers see JavaFX as the language)

2) JavaFX is NOT a scripting language.

Even though it is called JavaFX Script, JavaFX is NOT a scripting language (in the dynamic sense). JavaFX code gets compiled to Java bytecode at design time. So, JavaFX is similar to Flex (except for the XML-UI part). Note that JavaFX started as a scripting language in Sun Labs, but quickly became a compiled language (probably for performance reasons). Sun keeps using the term “JavaFX Script” to distinguish the language from the JavaFX brand and to avoid using the word “language,” which would make it too obvious that JavaFX is another language all together.

3) Android is NOT a Java-based device.

Here again, some confusion could come from Larry’s keynote address. Some might believe that Android is Java-based and that it runs Java. However, Android is NOT Java based; it is Linux based. Google Android SDK converts Java bytecode to Android more optimized Dalvik VM bytecode. Thus the developer codes with Java, but the device does not run Java (kind of similar development experience to GWT, which cross-compiles Java code to JavaScript/AJAX). While it is possible to have Java VM for an Android phone, an application built with Android SDK does not run on Java when executing on the device. By the way, I still have not found JavaVM for my G2/HTC-Magic.

4) JavaFX cannot run on Android without a Java VM.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong (with an example) on this one. This is a discussion I had with my friend @cromwellian about getting JavaFX on Android. In short, the only practical way to get Java FX on Android would be to have a JavaVM on Android. The Android cross-compiling trick would be pretty complex to extend to JavaFX. As stated above, JavaFX is not only a library, but a whole different language, which gets compiled to Java bytecode. So the Android compiler will have to do quite a bit of work to move a Java/JavaFX application to a non-Java VM. It’s not impossible, but hard. GWT² hard, I think. So, to recap, you can run JavaFX on Android, but you need a JavaVM (apparently JavaFX on Android has been demo in JavaOne -see 2:30-)

5) Java is NOT on most devices [that matter].

Sun likes to say that Java is on billions of devices (see 0:54). While mathematically probably true, practically, developers do not really care about Java for mobile. These days it’s all about iPhone, Android, Plam Pre, and mobile Web (not even Windows mobile). Most of these high-profile phones do not have Java out of the box, and getting a Java runtime can even be challenging. For example, there is no JavaVM out of the box on iPhone, Android G2/HTC-Magic, and Treo 750 WinMobile (I could not find one on my old Treo 750 WinMobile). And for the rest—well, the J2ME market is very fragmented. It is really hard to measure your reach when you develop a Java application for mobile devices. And the ironic part is that since JavaFX needs the latest and greatest JavaVM to run, it does not even run on the billions of billions of J2ME devices anyway. So, in a way, Sun has been resetting the clock with JavaFX for their mobile market. They still have the device manufacturer’s relationships but they do not have the devices anymore.  Some disagree with these statements noting that Java is on all Nokia and most Sony-Ericsson devices (see Jehtro’s comment)

As a software Architect/Entrepreneur, I truly like and use Java a lot, but I hate Kool-Aid. I really wish that Java and JavaFX will be successful on the mobile and PC market, but as a community, we need to assess the current state realistically if we want to accomplish our vision. That aside, I would agree with Scott: if Larry managed to convince Steve to put Java on iPhone (at 0:26), it would definitely be a game changer (however, this would be against Apple’s Wall policy).

As a side note, I am sure that the Open Office team got very excited when Larry told them they should port their application to JavaFX. Flying pixels should rule the world!

But the big questions are: which one is better and which one is going to ultimately win?

While it is hard to objectively answer this question, here is my first attempt to create a simple score card. I have created a “4 Ss Scorecard” that I think is quite representative of the mobile market need.

Openness:

The first property is openness, which represents how easy it is for developers to build and deploy applications and users to download and install them.

From a user point of view all three phones allow users to easily install applications over the air (aka OTA) or via cradle. From a developer angle, Microsoft and Apple have a similar approach that requires developers to buy their development tool (e.g., Visual Studio for Windows Mobile) or their OS (Mac for iPhone application).

Google has a much more open approach; their phone is based on an open platform and language (Linux and Java) and provides free tooling on top of an open development IDE (Eclipse)

Openness winner: Android

Marketplace:

This characteristic is about the capacity of creating a strong marketplace around a specific platform.

iPhone has definitely the edge on this one, as they have created a single store which promotes application monetization. However, this is not entirely beneficial for users, as Apple is deciding what application goes in or stays out, and most applications will not be free.

I think that Microsoft was not aggressive enough in creating its own store; and, while Google created one (with $25 developer fee), it might not have the same monetization appeal of the Apple one (at least at the beginning).

In other words, if you want to make money out of your mobile application, choose iPhone.

Marketplace winner: iPhone

Coolness:

This one is easy; Apple iPhone is and probably will stay the winner of this category. Steve Jobs has a gift for making things cool; and, while Google might come close, they will always be trailing behind. Google is actually writing themselves out of this category.

As for Microsoft, well, they have work to do.

Coolness winner: iPhone

Usefulness:

This is where the controversial part comes in.

iPhone is definitely cool and has a lot of good applications; however, Apple is still Apple and their controlling approach limits the full potential of the device. For example, tethering is not available and not even allowed as a third party application. Nevertheless, I was pretty impressed by the iPhone’s native support for Microsoft Exchange.

Google, interestingly, has similar issues as it forces users to utilize Google services (at the end, nothing is free). So, business users wanting to use Exchange are out of luck and should somehow migrate to Google apps.

Consequently, from a functionality point of view Windows Mobile is still the best choice available, at least for business users. Most of the new applications such as Skype, Qik, Google Maps, and obviously Mobile Office and Outlook are readily available on Windows Mobile. So, if you do not care about flying pixels, virtual lighters, and virtual beers, then Windows Mobile is still a smart bet. (disclaimer: I am a happy Treo/WM6 user).

Usefulness winner: Windows Mobile

So, I am pleased to announce that the winner is iPhone with a score of 2 against Android with 1 and Windows Mobile with 1.

However, personally, as a business user, usefulness comes first, and tethering and exchange integration are basic requirements. So, for now, I am sticking with Windows Mobile and my Treo 750. I might upgrade to Treo Pro when and if they support Windows Mobile 7.

What phone are you using? And why?

Find the best mobile phone by checking out detailed and robust cell phone reviews.

I think that the main reason why mobile email has taken so long to be widely deployed was the reluctance from the Telcos to enable a competing technology that infringes on their highly profitable text messaging (SMS) and promising rich messaging (MMS) services.

As they successfully accomplished for text messaging and ringtones, the Telcos wanted to charge users for sending a rich message, watching a movie, streaming a video, downloading an application, and any other service beyond voice calls.

In short, the Telcos DID NOT want to be restricted to just being “the pipe,” as they have been confined in the wired world.

Well, as software giants such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft are aggressively entering the mobile space, the Telcos have slowly but surely become just that… a pipe…once again.

Speed, coverage, and price have become their core differentiators, and as in the wired world, users are now making decisions that are based on software (e.g., iPhone vs. Android vs. WinMobile) and application ecosytems.

For example, without a fee, mobile users can now do the following (outside of “the pipe’s” fees):

• Send rich messages: email
• Sync email, calendars, address books: Exchange, Google Email/Calendar.
• Get full geolocation services (mapping, directions, traffic): Google Map
• Stream Live Video: Qik

While Microsoft and Google are taking a traditional software approach to the mobile market, Apple has been cleverly playing a dual game (as they also are doing in the music industry). On one hand, they are playing the “exclusive and lock”  Telcos game by the book, to the point of being overzealous about preventing users from unlocking devices. On the other hand, they are virtually writing off the Telcos from the application market by providing their own application store.

Nevertheless, I still think the Telcos have some interesting market opportunities. First of all, as more users require additional bandwidth, Telcos will see their premium bandwidth demand going up, especially for Video (I pay an additional $40 per month for unlimited 3G). In addition, given that the mobile application market is about to explode, Telcos should be able to capitalize by creating their own application market place that can compete against the iPhone store.

As have many others, I’ve been relatively impressed by the innovation and popularity of the iPhone. I think Apple CEO Steve Jobs has a unique ability to gauge when and how a specific industry is ready to change (the Apple way). Though he somewhat missed the first PC market, he definitely didn’t miss the Internet music one, and now he is right on track to owning a big part of the next generation mobile market. The latest iPhone 3G phenomenon (product and buzz) is definitely a great example of Steve Job’s pioneering vision, and while most of the features of the iPhone were more or less expected, the total package, including the pricing and the developer platform strategy, is pretty darn impressive.

However, as a business user, I am mostly interested in three main following features, and so far, I can safely see only one out of these three.

Concerning the first feature, Microsoft Exchange synchronization, the latest iPhone 3G seems to have the full package, meaning e-mail, calendar, and contact push synchronization. I am still skeptical about this last one, since to my knowledge, Microsoft still has not published the full MAPI or ActiveSync protocol. However, I am going to take Apple’s word on it.

The second feature, the 3G modem, is one of the features I have been using a lot lately on my Treo750, and I would not conceive of buying a mobile device without this feature. The 3G modem with ATTW actually works remarkably well and is extremely useful for avoiding hotel surcharges, slow Wi-Fi connections, and hunting for unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots. I can’t live without it, and for now, it is not clear that the new iPhone will have it.

The last one, unfortunately, is a given, or, rather, an “un-given.” The new iPhones will still be “officially” available only as network-locked devices. I still don’t understand how carriers and device manufacturers can get away with these kinds of practices. I completely understand giving a big discount as part of a subscription package, but I don’t understand how a corporation can lock an Internet device to a specific network. It seems so counter to what the Internet is all about. It would be comparable to buying a PC that could only connect to the Internet via Comcast (Microsoft and Comcast could never get away with that). Anyway, I just hope that one day Apple or Google will use their market weight to force the wireless networks to fully embrace the open devices. Unfortunately, Apple does not seem to be headed that way (see iPhone 3G Requires 2 Year Contract, In Store Activation)

At this time, the deciding factor for me will be the 3G modem. If the new iPhone has it, I might just take the plunge.