I’ve drawn the analogy between todays mobile phone operating war and the desktop PC OS battles of the early 90’s before, and if I’m right it points to a future containing an Android monoculture.
If you’re unfamiliar with the history that lead us to the virtual monopoly Windows currently enjoys on our home and work computers, then you could do a lot worse than read “In the Beginning was the Command Line” by Neal Stephenson. It presents the story in a way that you don’t have to be a techie to understand and miraculously makes a very dry subject rather entertaining to read.
To understand where the mobile phone OS market is going, we need to see where it came from:
Early mobile phones like the Motorola Dynatac were basically big dumb lumps of analogue hardware, there was no operating system as such and if one were to compare them to computers they would be on a par with those big desktop calculators accountants have.
Smaller, digital mobile phones followed quickly, but again there was little in the way of software, at least none that users had anything to do with. Most handsets had a phone book and maybe an alarm clock but that was it. This part of the story saw brands emerging, it was the likes of Nokia and Motorola who became household names, and they did so on the strength of hardware, the small monochrome screens and simple T9 keypads left little room for differentiation in user experience so manufacturers had to innovate hardware to stand out. Again, in computer terms these phones were like the Commodore 64 and the Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
The first smartphones began to appear around 1995-6, Nokia’s communicator series brought new functionality to mobile phones, but it was basically a PDA stuck to a mobile with a hinge.
The innovation in mobile hardware driven by the need to differentiate saw things like colour screens and cameras become commonplace. The increased processing power and memory that these features needed allowed the first pieces of third party software to begin appearing, and somewhat predictably they were mostly games, but when the first Symbian phones arrived in 2000 the convergence of computers and phones began in earnest, Symbian was the first mobile operating system that the buying public knew the name of and it paved the way for the separation of hardware and software in the eyes of users.
This separation of hardware and software was a crucial point in the history of personal computers too, early computers like the Commodore 64 and the Sinclair ZX Spectrum came with the operating system hardwired in on factory fitted ROMs and could not be updated or altered. This all changed with DOS, an operating system that was a product in its own right, and could be used on hardware from any number of manufacturers.
Once the idea of an operating system being independent of the hardware took hold in the PC market several things happened; hardware became less important to your average buyer, as long as a computer ran Windows you knew where you were, this led to people losing brand loyalty to the hardware brands.
The newly levelled playing field meant that hardware manufacturers were no longer dependent on relationships with the brand owners and could sell their hardware to anyone and suddenly assembling and selling a working computer from off the shelf parts and software became relatively easy. This pushed prices down and helped the PC become a household item, and every new PC came with Windows.
This is what is now happening with Android, while Apple and RIM stick to the proprietary hardware/software combo, Google have made an operating system that anyone can use. Companies that have the hardware capabilities to produce smartphones no longer need to partner up with a big name or develop their own operating system and UI to get in to the game. HTC for example have gone from relative obscurity a couple of years ago to a major player in a relatively short time, all on the back of a few Android phones.
So will the same erosion of brand loyalty occur? People buying Android phones still seem to choose a phone based on the brand first and the OS second, but as the Android name becomes more familiar and comfortable – as Windows did – other factors will become less important. People will start the buying process with “I want an Android phone”, and then choose based on features, price and brand, probably in that order.
Commodity PCs are big business, white label boxes running Windows are everywhere, and it seems that phones will go the same way, the Orange San Francisco for example is a network branded smartphone with Android that you can get for about £20 on PAYG.
The figures on Android’s growing market share in 2010 back up the view that we’re heading for a phone market dominated by Android in the same way that Windows still dominates the PC market, and although I’m an Android user at the moment I actually hope that we’re not.
Window’s dominance of the PC market has been good in many ways, reduced hardware costs, increased IT literacy and a standard development platform to name a few, and perhaps Android will bring similar benefits, but unless Google are very careful it is likely to bring some of the same problems too.
The entire phenomenon of viruses and malware is a result of the proliferation of Windows, the people behind malware take advantage of that same standard development platform. Some might argue that the problem is the security of Windows, I disagree, the problem is that it’s the biggest target. Why bother writing malware for an OS with a few percent of the market when you can expend the same effort and go after more than 90% of the computers on the planet? If Android achieves this level of market share it will come under attack and we’ll all be faced with the soul destroying prospect of our phones grinding to a halt under the strain of running antivirus software.
The Windows monopoly also gave us such gems as Vista and Millenium Edition, and because earlier incarnations were good enough to gain control of the market and eliminate the competition we didn’t really have much in the way of alternatives. Android is still innovating, but where will it go once it has the majority of the market? Will it fall in to the trap of lazy mediocrity and bloat?
There is, of course, one vital difference: Android is open source. (at least most of it is) This gives everyone a level of control that we’ve never had with windows. Any major problems that do arise can be dealt with by any competent developer(s). Sure, you may need to root your phone, but at least we’ll have the option to modify the OS as we see fit.
I think the issues are:
1) Apple is very restrictive to data-related moves, and so for software. The best of Apple is the hardware, but even that way android phones are good competitors.
2) The application stores model is also a restrictive model, and most of applications on any store actually are “games” and crapware. There are very few thing you really need, from say, the Apple App Store. Here android wins because does basis a lot of cheaper than iOS.
I wish Android is only temporal. As a developer I hate the java mono culture and wish the linux power really comes to phones. That is GTK, QT and enlightenment libraries over Wayland, but for this to happen those libraries need to include good multitouch support.
I program and enjoy Iphone tools, but I don’t like the fact that it is becoming a monopoly(google don’t like desktop apps, they what all to be cloud, and if you let them, from googleplex instead of your house).
at least we can be sure, that the vast amount of different android versions floating around already will make it somewhat harder do write compatible malware 😉
Except that There is no Price gap between iPhone’s and Android phone’s the way there was, and to some extent is in the Mac / PC analogy.
You also count out Microsoft, who knows a thing or two about dominating markets..
As for malware on Android, it’s already got the lead in terms of bad app’s and actual viruses/trojans
There are i think a few for jailbroken phones, (but there getting ASLR)
The main flaw in the Windows analogy is that Android, or the majority of it, is open source, as are the development tools and SDK.
The future of Android is not as-closely linked to one company, making an Android “ME” or “Vista” less likely.
Also, there’s a school of thought that maintains that more “eyes on the code” results in a reduction in the incidence and impact of vulnerabilities.
the problem with this analogy is that android has a different IPC model. similar to iOS’s and XO it doesn’t have much in the way of IPC so malware can’t invade other programs or evade the user’s attention to surreptitious things in the background. If we can keep a good security model we can keep it a good phone platform. That means everyone needs to contribute. There are plenty of open source projects with no outside contributors (like open solaris) that stagnate. There are opportunities for android distros to diversity and maintain compatibility.
U already can : Android on iPhone, on Windows phone, etc…. once u jailbreak a phone, u can du whatever u want on it
“Some might argue that the problem is the security of Windows,I disagree, the problem is that it’s the biggest target”
I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. The architecture of windows has only recently become a multi user operating system and even then it’s been more or less bolted on. The old UNIX style architectures of *BSD / OSX / Linux is still far from perfect but it does add another layer of security on top of what windows is providing ( there are significant parts of what should be windows ‘userspace’ which directly hook into the kernel still , GDI comes to mind).
If you then look at Solaris / BSD Jails and SELinux / AppArmor on Linux you then see yet another layer of security.
Linux and UNIX are most prevailant on the server side which is quickly becoming the data store for alot of the valuable information ( a problem in it’s self ), so I would probably argue that while the numerical target size of windows is larger, the actual data value differences are not that large.
HAVING said that, pretty much the only thing standing between an application and the bare metal in an android machine is the Dalvik VM since google decided to reinvent the userspace to remove these well tested protections. IMHO the nokia and webos approaches made more sense from a security standpoint.
my2c
So in other words Apple was right to close it all down?
Anti-virus for removing viruses required is a failure of the OS designed in secuirty frameworks. Since installed programs should not be able to be tampered with other installed program in a proper secuirty environment. OS secuirty environment should be just as effective as running an anti-virus to prevent virus spreed. If it gets breached to core not even an anti-virus can help you. Ie something infected should be as simple to fix as uninstall infected program reinstall clean if secuirty as worked. Detection should also be as simple as that the installed files don’t match what is in installer any more.
This make is really hard for virus writers todo much.
Malware scanning is a different matter. Malware scanning will be kinda require to prevent users being tricked. Even there Android is using the app store method so users don’t go and get applications from random locations. Android even includes a nice counter Malware. If a app store finds anything infected they can mark that application they have store to be removed from all phones at there next sync with app store.
Android is ahead of curve here.
I am sorry to say Windows is not on the most computers on the planet. Yes it makes up about 90 percent of the desktop market. Servers Windows is not that high. There are a lot of different markets as well that are invisible but if infected would be highly destructive.
Linux world does not ever believe is a single competitor outcome.
ChromeOS, meego and android will all be competing against each other but working with each other as well.
If the android updates to come out so far are any indication then I think we have nothing to worry about, the performance seems to get better and more streamlined with every version, rather than turning older devices into complete bricks.. (iOS 4 anyone?)
Your argument with HTC is greatly flawed. They’ve been around a long, LONG time and have been an OEM manufacturer for smartphones since the Treos! and the Windows phones such as the Cingular phones.
Do you know how big HTC was 3 years ago? They entirely dominated most of the Windows Mobile phones made, and that included PalmOS phones.
The ONLY reason YOU’ve heard of them recently is they’ve decided to bring up their brand independence, and that started 2-3 years ago and well before Android. They were very, very well established and so the logical choice as the manufacturer of the first Android device.
You’re also missing the angle that it’s Linux that’s leveling the field by bringing an unstripped, unneutered mainstream OS kernel with all of its capabilities directly into a smartphone. It’s an OS with more than 20 years of maturation and refinement and open-source input from fields of demanding-high reliability on a huge variety of hardware and low hardware requirements.
All of the rest have been custom-built, by a small isolated team without continuous open refinement (except iOS), and lack the years of experience and scaling that Linux has.
Another angle you’re missing is that this openness will bring massive fragmentation as a CE device. There’s no dictator or shared repository on derivative code quality, esp by these mom-and-pop hardware shops whom don’t have software engineering skills. The only hope these scions have is to stick close to the mainline source so they don’t get locked out of the upgrade path. However this exposes the consumer directly to this wilderness where the OEM is responsible for that “implementation” of Android instead of Google. We’re already experiencing poor OEM support (Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Acer, etc etc) which will probably get worse. As a “throw-away” OS implementation, Android is probably better than webOS or coming competitors.
lack of innovation is not restricted to Windows. It applies to Macs as well. Similarly, you can already see lack of innovation from apple with regards to the iphone. There have been no “innovations” from them in the iphone4, just enhancements and enabling hardware functionality that already existed in other phones.
Windows security is not the reason for the malware? So you tell me, which OS, other than Windows (maybe not Win 7) will get infected as soon as an infected thumb drive is plug to it? I mean, exactly at the moment it is inserted.
The difference is that Android is essentially an open platform; even if google were to abandon it tomorrow there is still potential for innovation via 3rd party development.
I’m also interested to see where Intel plans to take its Meego platform. Google got a head start with Android, but there is great potential in an x86 compatible platform.
The big difference between Windows and Android is the concept of “sandboxing” programs. That makes android much less vulnerable to attack.
I’m sorry, but I need to disagree here. What created the virusses etc for windows was not the fact that it had the largest userbase. It was the fact that it had no security-system to speak of. XP was a hackers dream and a users nightmare.
As has been stated 1000ds of times: linux runst 70% or something of the web. It is rarely hacked. Why? Because a good (not perfect, by any means!) security system build in. It was build to be secure. It has been hacked, sure, but not with the devastating consequenses a the Blaster worm for windows/outlook. It never can be.
Users still precieve worms/virusses as a great threat because of security idioticy as that…
Android is build on Linux and JAVA, two of the most secure environments in the computer industry. Coincidence? I think not…
You really think most people in the world have the time or desire to understand the nuances of hardware and software differences, and on top of that make a choice from the paralyzing and painstaking analysis that would be involved? What planet are you on !?
The big difference: Android is Open Source. If security becomes an issue, different flavors can compete in improved security. Furthermore: With its Linux kernel, Android is fundamentally based on the *nix tradition where security has always been a central issue.
I agree with sandeep it would be heaps better if we could just choose what hardware we want and then install the OS.
However I do think that windows phone 7 does have a great opportunity to succeed and it is not only Android that could bring this about, I know everyone is saying Microsoft is too late but they entered the gaming industry which Sony and Nintendo pretty much controlled and now they have arguably the most popular console on the market overall.
For me the difference between Windows and Android is the security itself. Because Android is based on Linux security has a much higher priority (even on mobile devices) than on windows
An android smartphone for £20? Where please?
Good article, and your point is well made. However, whilst the separation of hardware from OS is already happening Android isn’t the only player. With Microsoft launching their new mobile OS which seems to be getting mostly glowing reviews, this battle isn’t over by a long way. And what I think Microsoft have learned about producing a mobile OS which users want is that you have to keep very strict control over the way it is implemented by the hardware manufacturer.
Previous incarnations of Windows Mobile have been woeful, in no small part because every manufacturer twisted it, crippled it with substandard processing power and added to it with inferior styling, UI and features. Finally (and it’s amazing that it took so long) the folks from Redmond have realised that these terrible implementations damaged their reputation and with the WP7 they have tightened up by insisting on minimum hardware specifications and design features and by restricting the amount of customisation manufacturers can make. The result is a winning one.
As long as Google continue to allow manufacturers to implement their OS however they please – and it’s hard to see how they can stop them since it’s open-source – they’ll be in danger of losing the hardware-independent mobile OS war to a slicker competitor.
Some factual errors here – in particular, “This all changed with DOS, an operating system that was a product in it’s own right, and could be used on hardware from any number of manufacturers.” is incorrect. Prior to DOS, there was CP/M from DEC (R.I.P.) which ran on a lot of different hardware (NorthStar Horizon, Altair, Research Machines Limited, Amstract 1512, SuperBrain and lots more); CP/M however was for 8-bit systems [Intel 8080, Zilog Z80 etc] with the S100 bus. DOS took over at the 8-to-16 bit transition for a number of reasons largely attributed to DEC’s hubris and Bill Gates’ accumen
@sandeep, this wont be long in coming… the hardware underlying the windows phone 7 and top of line androids are very similar… same arm processor, same chipsets, ram etc.
iPhone, RIM and Nokia have varying degrees of custom silicon, so wont benefit from this for a while.
Nokia’s new MeeGo is a step in this direction.
The issue with this is that the benefit will be primarily for the hardware manufacturers rather than the consumer, as the apps are not especially complex, silverlight flash and java will abstract the OS away, so apps will run on all the platforms eventually, (insulating the developers)…
So with apps running on any os, and the os running on any hardware, there is no united pressures, therefore I disagree with the article and suggest that the market will support multiple OS’s and their differing User Experiences.
I dont see how there could be an “Android monoculture” – as you put it because Android is open and available for modification by anyone who wishes. This is why things like cyanogen exist.
While im not suggesting that Android will remain free of malware or viruses. Its nature of openness will increase variety of target platforms any mal-doer might want to hit making it a much harder job.
I actually think some of the negative aspects of the windows monoculture, when applied to android proliferation will be good for the IT community as a whole, since the open source side of things will benefit not just the linux based Android, but other operating systems too.
Android is part of a much larger revolution than is immediately apparent to most people realise. Go read Glyn Moody’s (Rebel Code). You will see that Linux and the open source movement was responsible for the foundations and the backbone of the internet as we see it today. Without it, the freedoms we experience as voracious consumers of information would not exist in the way we currently know it. Even early versions of windows used the Open Source berkley tcp.ip stack.
For years geeks around the world around have been clamoring for “Year of the Linux Desktop”. For the most part Linux distributions like Ubuntu – now “Just Work” ™.In my experience I have more hassle and compatibility problems working with new versions of windows. I think we can forget about the Linux Desktop – as we just bypassed that all together and are set to dominate the Smartphone/tablet market – with slick interfaces to boot. I believe Android , Linux and open source will continue to shape our colliding worlds of technology for the better for many many years to come.
N.
I think that android is only android. If Microsoft put a version of Windows Phone 7 for upgrade samethink smartphone. For example an Motorola Backflip i think that the people install it and leave Android.-
[…] This putz underestimates Android’s Windowsesque flaws: For etter or worse, if the hardware was to run a version of Windows, it pretty much did. And maybe, when the OS got upgraded (for better or worse) maybe the hardware could be upgraded. With Android, you neither know clearly what version you’re getting, whether you’ll be able to upgrade it, or whether your phone can be upgraded. […]
Personally, I don’t think Window’s problem is as largely down to its size as yourself. I think its crap security for so long has had a big hand in it’s problems.
I think the fear of a monoculture is an invalid fear because this time things are much more open. It’s never going to be much as a monoculture as Windows because it’s much more customizable, because it is open. You can’t not take this into account in the equation. This openness is to be encourage, not just to avoid monoculture, but to protect people’s freedoms and to recognize one size does not fit all.
I hope the app store model of software distribution eliminates most of the problems with viruses. As long as you can be sure all of the apps on the store are virus free, and you don’t download programs from other places, you should be safe. About the lazy mediocrity, google has had dominance in web search for a while now, and is still inovative and efficient. I really don’t see that problem (lazy mediocrity) coming to android, specially with it being open and people modifying it with new features (see cyanogenmod). I hope there is still competition for a long time to come, though. It drives innovation and all that.
“, I disagree, the problem is that it’s the biggest target. Why bother writing malware for an OS with a few percent of the market when you can expend the same effort and go after more than 90% of the computers on the planet? ”
That is a old argument. The most desired computers. The most important computers to hack is the servers. The majority of servers is running Linux. Well we don’t see too many security flaws and malwares like we see in windows, don’t we? Windows let a lot of open doors to microsoft spy you. People just explore them. Get informed.
Thanks
Windows is a big target for malware and viruses however Linux powers 40% of the server market and growing. I managed unix servers for 10 years and never one virus. Some of the responders have mentioned Ubuntu. As of the 10.x release Ubuntu is ready for prime time. I revive old PC’s for people with a $40 dollar hard drive and Ubuntu. Never one complaint about viruses.
The future is not one or the other but a choice of options. I still like windows for some things and if you know what you are doing you can keep viruses and malware at bay even on the swiss cheese of an operating system known as Microsoft
For those of you that disagree with the author about the similarities between Windows on the desktop and Android on the phones–most of you seem to have missed the point. It’s about separating the the hardware from the software.
Tcha-Tcho and Greg — Your disagreement doesn’t mean it’s not a valid argument. To that point — I’ve managed Windows servers (and Unix and Linux) for 10 years. I’ve never had a comprised system — Windows or non-Windows. It’s about the process, not the platform.
Android will not stand alone. Check out Meego…
“I think that windows-style mediocrity will be unlikely to happen in an Android-dominated economy for one very simple reason.
Microsoft held the keys to Windows, Android is open source…”
You would make GNU proud. More philosphically pure but evidence-lacking words were never spoken!
I really like Android. I like that the development model is open (in contrast to the harsh restrictions that iPhone and WP7 place on developers), but that has nothing to do with “open source” and everything to do with “open API.”
The Open Source nature of Android is absolutely irrelevant as long as the dominant type of Android phone sold is the reduced rate, two-year contract supplemented OEM locked-down phone. These phones are functionally closed and currently drive the direction of innovation on Android.
Where’d CP/M fit in, and why was not it but its cheap remake MSDOS the eventual victor? Recall that there was quite the gap between MSDOS becoming widespread and windows becoming halfway usable. Independent of the hardware? Hardly. If you go deep enough you can still see the fall-out from braindead design decisions from back when. Also compare MSX, an actual hardware standard. Why did it fail?
Symbian is already that ubiquitous system as it is deployed on a couple hundred million handsets Out There. Yet, it is losing badly. How come?
Go on. You have a premise worth exploring but are falling a bit on your face for lack of historical and global perspective and expounding.
1) You talk about the history of smart phones & never mention Palm? Sure, it was a PDA first and then they attached a phone, but it was smart before RIM and long before Symbian.
2)”The entire phenomenon of viruses and malware is a result of the proliferation of Windows” — the very first computer worm ran on Unix! It was the spread of network connectivity that allowed viruses and malware to spread.
I don’t understand why is all this ecstasy about mobiles, androids etc.
What’s the use of such small devices? Even laptops are awkward in most applications because of their small keyboards and monitors. I will wait for a kind of built-in holographic projector and some advanced input device as real-size keyboard replacer before considering any small device extensive usage.
Before everything and before saying anything, it is just very important that we realize that if Android got to the position to dominate the mobile phones market, it is going to be under the most toughest test a system has ever been, because today’s viruses and mailware and anything else bad, all are very advanced, and if (I hope not) if Android fail in this test, then that would be a disaster not only on it, but on all other Linux systems
As a user, I don’t care about the phone OS. All I care is that is stable, simple to use, secure, and do not lock me into a particular company. I also want the ability to buy from more than one AppStore. And the ability to switch providers easily. A plus if you can get real encryption of data and conversations. As well as a whitelist system to avoid annoying telemarketers.
Android is more like the new DOS than the new Windows.
Windows provides the user with many of the necessities of modern life. DOS didn’t. Android doesn’t.
With DOS, if you wanted a file manager, you had to go out and get one of hundreds of apps then available, and hope for the best. Same with a calendar, to do list, notepad, music player, etc. Or settle for the apps that came pre-loaded on the machine (yeah, they really have your best interest at heart when installing those).
Android gives you nothing. Your phone is initially set up with whatever crap the manufacturer and wireless company loads it with. The phone does nothing without them. On my HTC Incredible, these apps are non removable.
I’m really disappointed that Android has not provided even the PDA functionality of a 17 year old Palm 1 or 25 year old Sidekick (for DOS), and has left me to a hodgepodge of apps that frankly, don’t do it either. I’m also not happy at having spent so much time mucking around looking for things like these, and trying to fix things like a music player that can’t read the artist tags on WMA files (I have 5,000 songs showing as “Unknown Artists” – This true for all players runing 2.2, as they all get this info from an Android API, which doesn’t work), or system lock ups when doing a mutlt-touch zoom on a picture. Yes, another 6-8 hours mucking around and getting nowhere. The discussion boards abundantly confirm that these are common, if not universal issues.
My phone is a spectacular piece of hardware, and I’m delighted with many of it’s capabilities, but I was really expecting it to have competent, debugged, basic capabilities. I can’t help but think Google has deliberately left these things out in order to jump start developer ecosystem and pump up the app count. If you value a task manager over a Facebook widget, you will be disappointed.
I think your omission of Windows CE/Mobile is a pretty big one in this discussion (not talking 7 but the older versions). Android is copying the WinMo model. HTC gained prominence thanks to WinMo well before Android came out.
Granted WinMo is now obsolete and it looks like Android is going to take over as its heir apparant to the diversified OS/Hardware smartphone crown. But those who seek to crucify Microsoft should at least acknowledge that they are far less “evil” than those companies that want to control the OS, hardware, and in Apple’s case all 3rd party software that can go on their devices.
You are mostly correct and this seems similiar to the battles that took place in the 80’s between MS and Apple, this time it is between Apple and Google. Ironically people always painted the closed Apple ecosystem as the good guy against the comparatively open Microsoft ecosystem then. At least now people are getting it right and realizing that Google is far less “evil” than Apple when it comes to democratizing computing (just as Microsoft was).
One thing that may be troublesome for Google, what if Apple is right on this one? What if the mobile platform, where power and size considerations dominate (and were largely irrelevant in 1980’s/90’s computing) give the integrated approach a technical leg up that cannot be overcome by Google (or Microsoft) in their aim to keep the software and OS hardware agnostic?
Hello
Yes, it will fall in that trap. But not as you might think. If anyone believes the stories abyout code which can be “accidently” take control of you PC by loading a picture (a few years ago) or simply by using a font (more recently) then you are naive. Android will have it’s secret service backdoors too. And because secret services are not the best (except perhaps some unnamed middle east organisation) the bad guys will find and use these doors without hesitation.
Regards