|
11 January 2010
Posted in
Design
The reactions to Google's introduction of the Nexus One phone based on its open source mobile OS Android 2.1 have been mixed. This wide range of reactions should not be a surprise. After all, Google has been so dominating and successful with its search, advertising and Gmail plays that it has created a few scared rabbits. Google's reach extends to and through so much of our online lives today, that some worry about it gaining a stranglehold over mobile communications as well. Let's look at why Google would make this move and what it might mean for others in the ecosystem.
Google wants to be the index for the world. Indexing the Internet was only the start. They're indexing printed books, emails and ultimately, all communications and interactions. To do that, they need to be in the flow. A user was in Chicago and needed directions to a nearby restaurant. Which restaurant did they pick? How was their meal? What route did they take to get there? To whom did they recommend it? What did they say about it? By indexing not only the information, but the interactions, Google can monetize the data points and linkages / connections through advertising. Ever wonder why the vast majority of Google products are "free"? This is why.
So, why the phone?
Google has done a rather good job with the PC/laptop/browser, but had limited control over being in the loop of mobile communications and, face it, we are increasingly mobile communicators. Historically, the carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile...) have decided what content and applications can be on their handsets and what information could move back and forth. Besides driving the handset makers a bit nutty (different apps and features for each carrier), this could serve to lock out certain players who were deemed competitive to the carrier profit model.
Enter Apple.
Apple's iPhone was a revolution in many ways - elegant touchscreen, multi-touch, iTunes integration - but the aspects that shook the carrier world most were probably the control that Apple exerted over the application ecosystem and financial model. First, Apple wields an enormous amount of control over how the UI looks and what applications will be and have a right to be on the phone. Second, reports state that Apple makes money from not only the original sale of the phone handset, but also a monthly share of service fees. This new cash flow added greatly to Apple's Wall Street glow because it gave Apple an annuity stream from each sale. Apple also makes money from the Apple AppStore and iTunes store integrated directly into the device. Why did AT&T give up so much power? Because they had to do so to gain market share.
Enter Google.
Google has tried to play in the Apple iPhone ecosystem with Google Maps and integrated Google Search in the browser, but Apple has recently showed that they want to constrain Google's advance. Apple rejected the FREE (yes, free) Google Voice (digital phone) and Google Navigator (turn-by-turn navigation upgrade to Google Maps) apps claiming that they mirrored Apple functionality in confusing ways despite allowing Skype and other navigation tools onboard. What Apple really feared is being out-Apple'd. Google has fought this with the FCC, but since such battles take years, Google took a parallel approach. Google brought it's mobile OS Android out of the sandbox and drove it to the market with HTC, Motorola, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile; players who had been outside the Apple / AT&T ecosystem. Google then offered its free applications on those platforms, but a problem remained. Apple's iPhone tends to suck the oxygen from the room. What to do? Google could stay trapped in the sluggish model of releasing the core OS and hoping that the handset and carrier tug-of-war development process worked for the end user or...
Take Apple on - mano a mano.
Google could release a product that benefits from the tight integration of form, function and service driven by one set of design guidelines. IMHO, there really was no choice here. Google had to find a way of, if not taking Apple's iPhone down a peg, at least putting a contender on the mountaintop with it. I believe that this is the plan for Nexus One. It doesn't have to be perfect. The Apple iPhone clearly is not. It has to be a credible competitor. The Nexus One is that. The question is whether the public will give the Nexus One concept time to develop. It took two years for Apple to fix some fundamental design flaws with the iPhone - copy & paste, speaker volume, data speeds - and it still has some - incredibly limited personalization (wallpaper, sms and email alert tones), email UI, Adobe Flash support... Now, some claim that this is a risk to compete with its own channels - the carriers - but I say that the cariers will also benefit from this move. It serves their needs to not have Apple alone dictating the future of the phone ecosystem. Google will provide much of the content for free (advertising-funded). What the carriers need to do is learn to compete in the new model just as music labels have had to learn to live in the digital download world.
The unlocked phone.
Europe has learned to enjoy the idea of the phone without a leash. Users buy a phone without a dedicated telco carrier - "unlocked". Then, they pick the carrier of their choice and tell the phone to link with it via a SIM card. Change carriers? Just change SIM cards. Change phones? Bring your old SIM card. It would really bother me to have to watch a DVD bought at Best Buy on a Best Buy DVD player. So how crazy is it to buy a phone from Google and then connect it with the carrier of my current fancy? How does Google soften the "blow" on carriers not wanting you to "date around"? They offer subsidized deals with carriers willing to play. If you have the cash to fund carrier independence, by it unlocked. The phone isn't the only thing unlocked.
Android Market is unlocked.
Apple has ruffled some feathers with its iPhone AppStore. Not only does it wield a sometimes irratic censorship wand (Google Voice, Google Navigator), it is also reviewing so many applications that bug fixes take weeks to get to users. Many developers have asked why Apple should get between developers and users in this "nanny state" way. They acknowledge that some reckless or malicious developers could cause problems, but the same user reviews that drive adoption can chase out offenders. Right now, if a bug slips through, developers suffer the bad reviews while Apple turns its gears even if they fixed the problem on the day of launch. Google has made the Android market free of such gatekeeping. The developer decides when something is ready for market, as is true for applications on Macs and PCs generally.
Where could Google fail?
Numerous places. They tend to have an engineering mindset. They put new software out and let users decide how to use it and whether it is ready or not. They've left products marked "Beta" for years. They lay out a set of tools and let users figure out which ones suit their needs. That's great for those with the time to look through, but many users want at least a little help. Help for Google tends to be a bit like searches in general. Everything feels like a search. Where are the humans? My bet is that this is the biggest threat to Google in the future.
It will be fun to watch how this story develops. For some more commentary on what shines and what pales, check out these links:
