Google Android… yaawwnnn
Google’s recent entrance into the mobile world seems like a bit of a yawner to me. I mean seriously, does Google even believe in anything it does these days? It’s like a high school freshman who’s talented but totally insecure, so they do this good stuff but then kinda don’t stand behind it, kinda chuckle it off and hope to hell that someone else sees that it’s really cool and shows it around. I mean, Gmail is still in beta for crying out loud, (50% of the items in their grand nav are still labeled beta) if that isn’t skullnumbing insecurity I honestly don’t know what is.
So now Google quietly introduces Android and their Open Handset Alliance. With no fanfare and even less details. Sure great, a new operating system. You know what we didn’t need? A new operating system. We’ve already got tons and they all have lots of features. What we need is innovation in the user experience, phones are getting more complicated and harder and harder to use, if there was an announcement don’t tell me about how easy it will be to add new features to this platform, tell me about how much easier it’s going to be to use. The iPhone is a revolution not because it offers any stunning new functionality it’s a revolution because it’s interface changes the game. It is also a revolution because it’s the first and only time a company (Apple) got the advantage over one of the carriers who wield their monopoly like a massive guillotine over all their vendors’ heads.
Google, the 226 billion pound gorilla comes in and could make a serious splash, what do they do? Make an alliance around a new mobile OS. Man, it’s easy to sign up for an alliance, it doesn’t take anything so all those big names don’t guarantee any sort of success. I suspect all these signers uppers did so defensively, they don’t want to be left out just in case, but ultimately, they are all competing with each other and don’t have much incentive to actually want this to succeed. Why would they? When you think of the mobile phone carriers and handset makers do you generally think “open”? No, you think closed, drm, lock-in, screw their own customers.
Here’s another thing, “technological alliances” with 33 members don’t actually work, unless all those alliance members don’t get to have a say and Google’s really in charge, which will also ensure that none of the alliance members actually, you know, rollout a product. Can you imagine a product designed collaboratively by 33 competitors? Design by a committee of rivals? I can not think of a worse way to build something.
Engadget did some nice live blogging of the press event which starts with a lot of fluff about how excited people are to be in this but there’s a couple nuggets of interestingness:
9:43AM PT - Q: “It sounds like it will ship with a certain set of capabilities, is there a minimum set of things that need to be shipped to be considered an Android powered phone?” Rubin: “There are no restrictions. …” “Can carriers prevent users from adding in software / services they left out?” “That’s not really a [Google] software question.” (Was a little hard to track that one.)
9:45AM PT - Q: “Does this protect consumers in any way of installing software on their phones? Or can carriers create a completely locked down phone?” Rubin: “Please refer to the Apache software license… when you free something, it’s up to the industry to do something with it.” “So if the industry wants to create totally locked down devices, they CAN do it?” Rubin: “Yes.” Eric: “While it’s feasible, it’s also highly unlikely you’ll see that scenario.”
In what world does Google live in? It’s unlikely that you’ll see a scenario where the phone carriers insist on locked down devices? That’s the only scenario we currently live in! The carriers made Motorola create 5 different versions of their RAZR2 because each carrier insisted on a different feature set, turning on and off features all of which could have simply been enabled.
Q: “What will the look and feel of an Android-enabled phone be like? How’s this platform going to make it easier for people to get content on their phone?” Rubin: “It’s an amazing UI — it’s interface is top-notch.
To me this is the defining question. If the UI really is amazing, it’s conceivable that this could happen. It might go sort of like this - HTC releases an open phone with great hardware, great specs and this new fancy UI. People take to it, big time, because it’s cheap, easy to use and featureful. That forces the hand of all the carriers who didn’t really want to run this anyway and pow, all of a sudden it takes off.
Nevertheless, I honestly don’t believe that Google is very good at making UI’s. Consistency in a platform is very important and Google’s apps have 0 consistency. Each one is it’s own thing. The UI they’ve slapped on their applications are fine, but nothing overly interesting. I just don’t think they’ve got the track record that inspires confidence in their ability to do this.
If the SDK comes out and is awesome, it still isn’t a slam dunk. A) the carriers have the freedom to muck with the changes and if you are a designer you know how clients can turn something beautiful into something horrendous toute suite. B) developers won’t develop till there’s a sizable user base. Sure you will get some out there, but this is a mass market play, not a trendy play like the iPhone was, uptake is going to be slow so it will take awhile to get to the point where this is a respectable portion of users.
I don’t know, I wish Google would take more of a stand on it’s technology. Come out with something fully fledged and awesome and just stand on it’s strength and Google massive influence. Why make the announcement before the SDK is ready and you actually have something you can demonstrate if it’s only a week away? Because you don’t want to answer questions about the actual product, yet? Instead of this wishy washy me and my 33 best friends have this awesome idea kinda stuff they should have done something strong and backed it up with words and technology.
